at risk

[andyg0507]

went to a job the other day with the bloke i work with and we had to at risk the boiler because the flue was incorrectly supported, we turned the boiler off at the gas cock and when we did, the customer said he wasnt happy with what wed done because last time the flue was 'at risked' the engineer had just turned the boiler off at the power( basically this idiot had turned the boiler back on once the engineer had gone and its been like it ever since.)

but whos right or wrong, power, gas cock or something else

 

[prs1]

and thats just being down right dishonest albeiit with best intention!
All very well till they ring GSR and inspection puts your competance in the dock!
Me personally speaking and not calling anyone but i could not do that

 

[migoplumber]

old plumber has found the perfect "reason" never realised it before.
no win no fee lawyers do get paid - just like every other leeching lawyer, only they get to pick and choose their cases - if they know your not gonna win they wont accept you. I would happily go to court against any one of them.
lets face it though its not likely to happen, we are supposed to be trusted gas engineers operating within the regs to provide customer safety. if you know your customer is going to turn on the appliance youve just turned off - because you believe it is unsafe, the second you walk out the door, then you are not doing your job correctly and shouldnt be sleeping at night knowing you have a dozen AR appliances being blissfully used by their stupid owners - but what the hey, your paperwork is signed off and has transferred the responsibility to the stupid one, so everything is ok.
nah i prefer my method.

 

[Mbear]

One thing to bear in mind for the 'cap happy' boys

• over classifying is as bad as underclassifyig and shows incompetence in eyes of the powers that be.

AR means turn off with permission
I'D means cap with permission

 

[migoplumber]

can you back that claim up mbear and make me eat my hat ?
i will willingly eat it, and apologise, but will also carry on!

 

[Mbear]

can you back that claim up mbear and make me eat my hat ?
i will willingly eat it, and apologise, but will also carry on!

u know I'm technically correct on this bud

if u cap as standard on AR's then you are cap happy.

Sorry. No offence intended migo

 

[Bernie2]

Hmm!

I capped a gas fire once, and nearly lost my company its whole contract and me my job no doubt.

The thing is, as has been said I had no right to cap it off without permission, I was acting like a vigilante outside the law, even though I thought it wrong not to cap it.

The answer perhaps is to educate the gas user in gas safety and make them realise how dangerous it is.

Basically that is what GaSafe is supposed to do.

Its a bit pointless acting like a policeman without the authority to do so, toward people who have no idea about gas safety, yet they are expected to follow Safety Regs nobody has told them about.

 

[newbie1]

actually you will allways get supported for over classifying a situ rather than under classifying
i stand by my orig reasoning if i think for one moment there is a risk to life i will cap off or call transco if i dont then i wont simple as that no way can i walk away from something with the (i filled out the paperwork so they cant blame me if something goes wrong attitude)i need to sleep sound at night

 

[Bernie2]

Thing is Newbie1, I would agree with you. Unfortunately some of the clients may not.

 

[mikegas]

actually you will allways get supported for over classifying a situ rather than under classifying
i stand by my orig reasoning if i think for one moment there is a risk to life i will cap off or call transco if i dont then i wont simple as that no way can i walk away from something with the (i filled out the paperwork so they cant blame me if something goes wrong attitude)i need to sleep sound at night

Well there should be no immediate risk to life otherwise your classification would be id anyway

 

[Mbear]

actually you will allways get supported for over classifying a situ rather than under classifying
i stand by my orig reasoning if i think for one moment there is a risk to life i will cap off or call transco if i dont then i wont simple as that no way can i walk away from something with the (i filled out the paperwork so they cant blame me if something goes wrong attitude)i need to sleep sound at night

so if you cut&cap a chb that only really falls into ncs catagery you will get supported? of course you wont, why? because you've overclassified when there is no need.

I stand by what I said earlier in this thread

under and overclassification shows incompetence and a lack of understanding of the unsafe situation guidelines and procedures.

 

[newbie1]

at risk definition is if used it could present a risk
id definition is if used it would present a risk
so its not incompetence and actually a bit insulting to use that expression
as i stated i would rather over clasify and err on side of caution but thanks for the insult

 

[migoplumber]

dont think we are all ever gonna agree on this one!
suppose at the end of the day, you have to make your own decision on the circumstances, including how it will affect your business afterwards as bernie pointed out.

 

[newbie1]

agreed and i would rather sleep well than worry about a lost customer

 

[Mbear]

at risk definition is if used it could present a risk
AR to me means there is potential for it to be Id

id definition is if used it would present a risk
ID to me means say a fire is spilling right now

so its not incompetence and actually a bit insulting to use that expression
as i stated i would rather over clasify and err on side of caution but thanks for the insult

it's not an insult newbie, I'm merely using the terminology that we use in the gas industry. I'm not tryin to insult anybody, honest mate