Does anyone use a Borescope to inspect flues in voids?

[rjshook]

I'm sure most readers of this forum are aware of the new rules concerning the inspection of flues in voids and the recommendation to fit inspection hatches.

In the flat that I own, the flue runs across the living room ceiling so I am less than thrilled at the prospect of having to install inspection hatches.

I am wondering if there are any gas safe engineers that have equipped themselves with borescopes? (endoscopes or access inspection cameras) It would seem to be to be relatively small investment (£200-500) but could be a real way to get an edge on the competition. I'm sure there are a lot of flat owners that would happily pay a £15 premium and not have to worry about inspection hatches.

Does anyone think they could make an adequate flue inspection if they had a borescope? (If not, then why not?) Has anyone started using a borescope to carry out inspections?

Thanks,
Ryan

 

[Mbear]

I'd be wanting more than £15 lol. Do u think gas engineers are made of cash

I'm positive the hatches are due to be regulation as of 01/01/13 so I'd say the boiler would be 'at risk' given that the flue is not easily inspected.

 

[rjshook]

OK call it £20-25? How many inspections do you do a week? A payback period of 20 inspections in modern flats and then you are making a profit on investing in an extra bit of kit. There are 46 flats in my block and we are all being told we need to install one or more inspection hatches at £100 a pop. There is a big opportunity to charge a premium inspection price to us if you find an alternate solution to inspection hatches.

As for "at risk" - can you point to where in the regulations "ease of inspection" is a requirement? I thought the requirement was for the flue to be visually inspected.

 

[Puddle]

As said hatches are /will be required and use of cameras is not acceptale I have been told,why I do not know
A lot of us have inspection cameras and they are not that expensive now
Plug them into note book and can even record inspection

 

[rjshook]

Hi puddle,
Are you able to point to anything official saying that the use of cameras are not acceptable?
I really want to distinguish legal requirements from word of mouth.
Thanks,
Ryan

 

[Phil]

mmm....I have one of these cameras and although fine for checking dripping pipes round a corner I'm not sure how well they'd work drilling holes in ceilings and having a look around a flue unless it's obviously come totally apart.

They don't give you a 'crystal' clear veiw really, its not like pointing a TV camera at things, half the time the camera is upside down anyway.

I still wouldn't be without mine though (until its stolen anyway) Ha Ha....

 

[Mike Jackson]

Hi puddle,
Are you able to point to anything official saying that the use of cameras are not acceptable?
I really want to distinguish legal requirements from word of mouth.
Thanks,
Ryan

Have a look at Flues in voids

 

[anz]

Borescope...........absoulutely no chance that this will be acceptable.

The requirements are to have inspection hatches of a certain size at various intervals.

I think your just clutching at straws, looking for alternatives. I don't think there is any alternative.

 

[mountainman]

I'm open to correction but if a preexisting flue in a void does not have inspection panels then the installation would be classed as NCS, not AR.
Plus, in my opinion, a remote camera view could not come close to a proper visual inspection.

 

[rjshook]

Hi Phil - I've never used a sub-£1000 borescope. At my work we use the Olympus iPlex which is well into the 5 figure range and does give crystal clear video. Maybe my expectations of the sub-£1000 models is too great.

 

[anz]

I'm open to correction but if a preexisting flue in a void does not have inspection panels then the installation would be classed as NCS, not AR.
Plus, in my opinion, a remote camera view could not come close to a proper visual inspection.

No, I think it's NCS this year, but from next year it will have to be At Risk, and turned off.

 

[mountainman]

We can only isolate an appliance if it's ID and with the 'responsible persons' permission.
AR situations you cover yourself and write it up.

 

[Mike Jackson]

At risk is turn off with responsible persons permission plus necessary paperwork. If custard refuses complete paperwork detailing refusal.

 

[mountainman]

And inform the gas supplier who can legally isolate the appliance/installation.

 

[Mbear]

OK call it £20-25? How many inspections do you do a week? A payback period of 20 inspections in modern flats and then you are making a profit on investing in an extra bit of kit. There are 46 flats in my block and we are all being told we need to install one or more inspection hatches at £100 a pop. There is a big opportunity to charge a premium inspection price to us if you find an alternate solution to inspection hatches.

As for "at risk" - can you point to where in the regulations "ease of inspection" is a requirement? I thought the requirement was for the flue to be visually inspected.

Carbon monoxide alarms are not an alternative to being able to see the flue and you will still need to have inspection hatches fitted. You have until 31 December 2012 for this work to be completed. It is recommended that inspection hatches are fitted as soon as you are able to do so. From 1 January 2013, any Gas Safe registered*engineer will turn the boiler off, with your permission*and formally advise you not to use it until inspection*hatches have been fitted in appropriate places.

 

[Mbear]

No, I think it's NCS this year, but from next year it will have to be At Risk, and turned off.

Correct

 

[mountainman]

'with responsible persons permission' is crucial.
I can't see legislation allowing us GS engineers to forcibly turn off or disconnect an appliance or installation.

 

[Mbear]

'with responsible persons permission' is crucial.
I can't see legislation allowing us GS engineers to forcibly turn off or disconnect an appliance or installation.

Its always turned off with custs permission no matter If it's AR or ID. The only difference being is with an ID then we have a legal and moral responsibility to grass them up to the emergency provider

 

[billybob150811]

i might have to re-read the tb to check but i thought it suggested a min size so you could get you head inside the void i hadnt even considered a borescope till this thread learn something new every day

 

[Mbear]

i might have to re-read the tb to check but i thought it suggested a min size so you could get you head inside the void i hadnt even considered a borescope till this thread learn something new every day

300mm x 300mm located within 1.5m of every flue joint

 

[PlumbBobBob]

oh dear dont think the op is going to like that

 

[GrahamM]

I'm open to correction but if a preexisting flue in a void does not have inspection panels then the installation would be classed as NCS, not AR.
Plus, in my opinion, a remote camera view could not come close to a proper visual inspection.

No, I think it's NCS this year, but from next year it will have to be At Risk, and turned off.

If a flue cannot be fully inspected it may be classed as NCS upto next year if there is a working CO alarm in every room the flue passes through. Otherwise it is AR.

Mbear is spot on above. As per the regs there must be an inspection hatch of minimum 300x300mm within 1.5m of every joint. This puts the inspection camera idea to bed!

 

[Mbear]

If a flue cannot be fully inspected it may be classed as NCS upto next year if there is a working CO alarm in every room the flue passes through. Otherwise it is AR.

Mbear is spot on above. As per the regs there must be an inspection hatch of minimum 300x300mm within 1.5m of every joint. This puts the inspection camera idea to bed!

Thanku Graham, it does my nut when non gs-engineers (the OP) try qoute the rules to me

 

[GrahamM]

I have already AR'd a load as customer would not cough up for CO alarm. And there has been a few running through bathrooms, so CO alarms cannot be used so automatically AR until inspection hatches put in.

 

[Mbear]

I have already AR'd a load as customer would not cough up for CO alarm. And there has been a few running through bathrooms, so CO alarms cannot be used so automatically AR until inspection hatches put in.

I reckon I've AR'd at least 200 since it came into force mate, there's so many new flats/apartments round here and they're all getting stung now.

 

[AlexGas]

From 1 January 2013, all installations without appropriate inspection access provided will be classified as AR and should not be used until adequate access for inspection is provided.

 

[kirkgas]

Hi puddle,
Are you able to point to anything official saying that the use of cameras are not acceptable?
I really want to distinguish legal requirements from word of mouth.
Thanks,
Ryan

the document you need to read is produced by Gas safe Register asnd is listed as TB008 edition 2 (TB Technical Bulletin) without getting involved int he politics and legality which i have no problem with you doing, but the wording of the document clearly state the dimension and location of hatches to allow inspection of the flue, if no hatches then the installation is to be deemed AR (At Risk) so no matter what fancy equipment anyone has, we will not be in a position to argue the validity of a document we are legally bound to comply with via our gas safe registration, as i said more power to your elbow if you wish to engage legal council to fight this on your behalf, but cant imagine it will be cheaper than getting a vent fitted, and without seeing your actual property i think £100 is way excessive and you would be better spending time engaging a builder or joiner and getting 46 jobs for him and adjust the price to a mutually agreeable level for all

 

[kirkgas]

I'm open to correction but if a preexisting flue in a void does not have inspection panels then the installation would be classed as NCS, not AR.
Plus, in my opinion, a remote camera view could not come close to a proper visual inspection.

please find yourself corrected haha

 

[kirkgas]

We can only isolate an appliance if it's ID and with the 'responsible persons' permission.
AR situations you cover yourself and write it up.

if you are replying to anz, he is 99% correct by saying AR and turn off (he would have got 100% if he said after gaining owner/responsible persons permission) the end result of this is that if there are no hatches i will call it AR and ask for permission to turn off, if permission is refused i will write it up as that, take my money and go back next year and do the same again

 

[kirkgas]

And inform the gas supplier who can legally isolate the appliance/installation.

i have replied to a few of your posts on this, you really need to get your head round your legal requirement under the IUP

 

[kirkgas]

i might have to re-read the tb to check but i thought it suggested a min size so you could get you head inside the void i hadnt even considered a borescope till this thread learn something new every day

there isnt any point in considering a borescope as the TB clearly state the size and frequency of a hatch and if not there is is AR, someone nneds to go down the legal route to challenge the statement not us as we are on the inside and need to comply, if i advise a customer i would like to turn it off and label it as AR and they refuse its no skin off my nose as i have the required paperwork to keep me from jail, i can guarantee that as i have fully complied with their requirements and therefore cannot be blamed

 

[AlexGas]

there isnt any point in considering a borescope as the TB clearly state the size and frequency of a hatch and if not there is is AR

It is correct if you read TB 008.

But, if you have a look at TB 008 (Edition 2) - no access or inadequate access provided to allow satisfactory visual inspection of the chimney system/route can be NCS providing the risk assessment is OK. And the appliance may be left operational until 31 December 2012.
From 1 January 2013, all installs without appropriate inspection access provided will be AR.
It's all in the TB 008 (Edition 2).

 

[Halesowen1]

Originally Posted by mountainmanI'm open to correction but if a preexisting flue in a void does not have inspection panels then the installation would be classed as NCS, not AR.
Plus, in my opinion, a remote camera view could not come close to a proper visual inspection.

please find yourself corrected haha

Can it not be NCS untill 31/12/2012??

 

[AlexGas]

If the risk assessment is a fail - it could be AR or ID.

 

[mountainman]

The problem I find with regulations is that they are written by people who have never been or are no longer 'on the tools'
We, the great unwashed, spend a lot of time, money and effort in order to go to work yet there seems to be no definitive answer to a simple question.
This thread is proof in point.

 

[AlexGas]

yet there seems to be no definitive answer to a simple question.
This thread is proof in point.

It is clear it the TB 008 (Edition 2), have a look.
You have to work with the latest info.

 

[Mbear]

Originally Posted by mountainmanI'm open to correction but if a preexisting flue in a void does not have inspection panels then the installation would be classed as NCS, not AR.
Plus, in my opinion, a remote camera view could not come close to a proper visual inspection.




Can it not be NCS untill 31/12/2012??

It can be but only if it passes the risk assessment, ie carbon monoxide alarms in every room along the flue route and the parts of the flue u can see have to be fitted perfectly. It's much easier for a flue to fail than it is to Pass the risk assesment

 

[Mbear]

Here's how I'm proceeding ATM.
Pre 2013
•Flue in void, no hatches, no co alarm/s for every room/space, visible flue ok = AR
•flue in void, no hatches, co alarms in every room, visible flue ok = NCS
•flue in void, no hatches, co alarms in every room, visible flue has NCS 's = AR

The last bullet point could be up for debate slightly

Post 2013
No hatches = AR no matter if co alarms fitted. Although if stains are visible on voided space (gyproc or whatever material) then its ID until proven the flue is not at fsult

 

[Halesowen1]

It can be but only if it passes the risk assessment, ie carbon monoxide alarms in every room along the flue route and the parts of the flue u can see have to be fitted perfectly. It's much easier for a flue to fail than it is to Pass the risk assesment

Just trying to say that Kirkgas is not always correct as he keeps telling us, it can be NCS.

 

[billybob150811]

im not fighting kirk,s battles he,s big enough and ugly enough to do that but as i have been to carry out test in a flat with a broken flue you start to work backwards to defend the installer this one had a baby going to a hospital for oxyhaemglobin test and lawyers to screw are all about so do you print off that 14 page assesment and fill them out and keep them its a hard battle to fight so being a coward i go for hatches that is the practical approach i feel what do others think

 

[Mbear]

Hatches all the way, it's the safest option for both onsite GSR eng and customer alike. We can sleep sound at night knowing the 'would be flue' is safe as houses and the cust can also sleep in the knowledge that we have ok'd the flue rather than "it might be ok but as we can't see it u can use the boiler at ur own peril I u wish"

 

[Halesowen1]

All it means is that private customers will stop the guys coming to service their appliances, or worst case scenario is they will get a dodgy gas man in or have a go at doing it themselves.
Here is a little question, in theory the flue could get damaged the day after an inspection, so could be loosing P.O.C into the said flue boxing for best part of 12 months. If it was sealed before up into loft, this would more than likely have been safe for the home owner as no P.O.C into the main living areas. If you then put these hatches in for inspection, the P.OC could then be loose around the house if these hatches are not 100% sealed (and we know they wont be), may have an hatch in kids bedrooms etc.

 

[Halesowen1]

Hatches all the way, it's the safest option for both onsite GSR eng and customer alike. We can sleep sound at night knowing the 'would be flue' is safe as houses and the cust can also sleep in the knowledge that we have ok'd the flue rather than "it might be ok but as we can't see it u can use the boiler at ur own peril I u wish"

All we know is that it was safe at time of inspection, but now we have potentially serious holes in the flue boxing, maybe in kids rooms etc for the flue products to leak out from if the flue gets damaged in between services.
I can see the good point in being able to inspect whole of flue and joints, but I can also see the potential hazards.

 

[mountainman]

Excellent points, guess who would end up out of work and in court arguing the folly of opening an inspection access into a void.
Is there a BS EN Specification for access panels??

 

[Mbear]

All it means is that private customers will stop the guys coming to service their appliances, or worst case scenario is they will get a dodgy gas man in or have a go at doing it themselves.
Here is a little question, in theory the flue could get damaged the day after an inspection, so could be loosing P.O.C into the said flue boxing for best part of 12 months. If it was sealed before up into loft, this would more than likely have been safe for the home owner as no P.O.C into the main living areas. If you then put these hatches in for inspection, the P.OC could then be loose around the house if these hatches are not 100% sealed (and we know they wont be), may have an hatch in kids bedrooms etc.

It's The same for a gas safety/landlord inspection or even a car mot. There's not alot u can do about that

 

[kirkgas]

Just trying to say that Kirkgas is not always correct as he keeps telling us, it can be NCS.

if i supported another footy team i would be paranoid haha
i responded in a light hearted manner to anothers post, ? in reply to what i answered, the comment was about it being NCS, he didnt mention CO alarms so i went on the current TB which i understand completely, so based on his comments its AR, take a chill pill hales

 

[Halesowen1]

if i supported another footy team i would be paranoid haha
i responded in a light hearted manner to anothers post, why have i put your nose out of joint? have i rebukked you too many times? in reply to what i answered, the comment was about it being NCS, he didnt mention CO alarms so i went on the current TB which i understand completely, so based on his comments its AR, take a chill pill hales

Just by saying you are always right, you were incorrect and should not be telling people things that are not correct, you should know better.

 

[Puddle]

Back to co alarms,most are not suitable in bathrooms due to moisture,so all flues in boxing through bathroom,which there are many,have to be inspection hatched now or AR ?

Someone mentioned to me the other day,you can fit one in the room(s) next to bathroom,is this correct?

 

[Mbear]

Back to co alarms,most are not suitable in bathrooms due to moisture,so all flues in boxing through bathroom,which there are many,have to have inspection hatched now or AR ?

Someone mentioned to me the other day,you can fit one in the room(s) next to bathroom,is this correct?

Pretty sure if flue is fitted over a wc this equals a straight AR mate

 

[kirkgas]

All it means is that private customers will stop the guys coming to service their appliances, or worst case scenario is they will get a dodgy gas man in or have a go at doing it themselves.
Here is a little question, in theory the flue could get damaged the day after an inspection, so could be loosing P.O.C into the said flue boxing for best part of 12 months. If it was sealed before up into loft, this would more than likely have been safe for the home owner as no P.O.C into the main living areas. If you then put these hatches in for inspection, the P.OC could then be loose around the house if these hatches are not 100% sealed (and we know they wont be), may have an hatch in kids bedrooms etc.

i totally agree with this, and its something a lot of guys have said as soon as we tell them about TB008 when they are in for re-assessment (it is shocking that they dont know about it by now, but that just shows their firm or their own (if SE ) procedure for keeping up to speed is way short of what it should be) but they are sharp enough to know that as soon as they start filling out the Warning Notice and sticking on the AR aticker then they wont get called back again next year, so something that is intended to increase safety could end up decreasing work to the guys who are doing a good job