Classify this please doubting myself

[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