"Richard Conway" wrote in message
...
Bob Mannix wrote:
"Richard Conway" wrote in message
news
Mary Fisher wrote:

That's merely opinion, however. I'm not a judge.

Not in any official capacity anyway


Hey, if we start having a go at people for being judgemental on ng's,
there would be no-one left ;o)

Bob Mannix

Surely having a go at someone for being judgmental would be a bit
hypocritical anyway

I rest my case:-)

Mary

Bob Mannix wrote:

down, they will slant that way. You are right that it isn't and cannot be
said to be definitely illegal to DIY gas work unless CORGI registered *yet*
as the law has not been refined. I suspect (and said) that it will
*probably* turn out to be illegal.

The unfortunate thing is that it will be (in the end) DIY work that was
neither competent or "competent" and which causes death or injury (ar, at
best, significant damage) that will trigger the legal ruling. This too will
slant the outcome. No-one is going to take a competent person to court for
doing a proper job even if they aren't "competent", I suspect!

I agree, if you were competent then I would have thought that it would
be an easy enough defence to mount with the aid of an expert witness
etc. So the chances of a case being brought against someone competent
(technically) would seem slight. A much more likely target would be the
outright bodger who lashed up a boiler with speedfit.

If you have a look at the most recent accident stats (same site), they
show 5 fatalities as a result of explosion / fire, and 20 more from CO
poisoning. Given the very low accident rate (in the grand scheme of
things) There must be massive probability that all these accidents
occurred on set-ups installed by a "fitter" rather than a DIYer.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Bob Mannix wrote:



I'm sorry, I don't believe that to be true, Aside from anything else (eg the
intent of the law, the difference between "competent" (a matter of opinion)
and a "competent person" (demonstrably competent BEFORE the event

OK.

It is tempting, but counter-productive, to cinfuse the sommon sense meaning
of a word with the meaning of a word that has been used for a particular
purpose in an act of Parliament (or any other legal document).

In law, the term common sense means nothing.

Now onto other matters.

I was cleared to work with far more dangerous gasses than the stuff that
came from the North Sea. Shouldn't that make me a competent person to
work with less dangerous gasses?

Dave

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:31:15 +0100, r.p.mcmurphy wrote:

Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas?
Yes, for money or money's worth.

i thought
competent people could install gas too?

Should the matter of competence ever get tested in court then the
prosecution will argue that it would add up to the same requirement as
are needed to gain CORGI membership. The defence might take the line that
it meant new what you were doing and put it into practice as far as the
specific job was involved.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

In article ,
"Bob Mannix" writes:

I agree with you both here and the snipped bit further down. It is the case
(as you say) that legal precedent, which will define the law in detail, is
yet to be set. My point was that I bet (if you like) that the covert intent
is to discourage DIY

No it's not. This was discussed when the gas regs were last revised.
Some of the vested interests (e.g. CORGI) wanted it banned, but there
was no evidence that DIY gas work had resulted in any nasty incidents,
so it was not banned. The nasty incidents are caused by incompetant
traders (some CORGI but more not), lack of servicing (which banning
DIY would only make worse most likely), and leaks in the supply
network external to the premises (Transco's responsibility).

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:09:47 +0000, John wrote:


"Richard Conway" wrote in message
...
Set Square wrote:
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Richard Conway wrote:


Well, presumably if you weren't CORGI registered you wouldn't be
qualified to spot a gas leak anyway.


I guess that most people - CORGI registered or not - could tell the
difference between a house and a pile of rubble where the house *used* to
be! g
Ah yes, but only the CORGI chap could put it down to a gas leak - to the
average man in the street it could have just fallen down (or would he have
to be a qualified builder to work that one out?)

Nowadays it could as easily be down to a bomb factory going off

I wonder if Transco will use that as a defence next time they are in court?


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

Chris Bacon wrote:


which lets you in to that organisation. If you at
ant time make a mistake, you were not competent by
definition, and can be prosecuted, not just be
expelled from CORGI.

But even experts can make mistakes. It would be perfectly possible for a
competent person to nonetheless be found in some particular instance to
have been negligent etc. They would not necessarily be judge incompetent.

--
David Clark

$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Bob Mannix wrote:



I'm sorry, I don't believe that to be true, Aside from anything else (eg
the intent of the law, the difference between "competent" (a matter of
opinion) and a "competent person" (demonstrably competent BEFORE the
event

OK.

It is tempting, but counter-productive, to cinfuse the sommon sense
meaning of a word with the meaning of a word that has been used for a
particular purpose in an act of Parliament (or any other legal document).

In law, the term common sense means nothing.

Now onto other matters.

I was cleared to work with far more dangerous gasses than the stuff that
came from the North Sea. Shouldn't that make me a competent person to work
with less dangerous gasses?

Only if you understand domestic appliances ... I'm not denigrating your
knowledge and skills by any means but surely there's a difference between
what happens on rigs/platforms and kitchens/bathrooms? It can't be just a
matter of scale.

Would Spouse, who knows a LOT about domestic appliances, be capable of doing
the job you did on the North Sea?

Mary

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
Unlike the sgns in B&Q which state that ANY gas work must be done by
a CORGI-registered person.

But they don't ask to see your certification, even if you're an old
woman buying stuff.

Mary

I'd hazard a guess that any old woman buying gas type fittings in B&Q is
likely to be *very* competent. ;-)

--
*He who laughs last has just realised the joke.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message ,
r.p.mcmurphy writes
Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i thought
competent people could install gas too?

I've pointed out this error on a previous series

They don't take any notice - they're not interested
--
geoff

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:36:54 +0100, Bob Mannix wrote:


"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
You are confusing competent (we all know what that means) and
"competent".
In the eyes of the law you would have to demonstrate "competency", which
"they" generally take to mean being CORGI registered. The onus would be
on
you, if not a CORGI, to prove you were "competent" (even if competent and
IF
anyone asked of course!), which would involve showing you had lots of
experience, satisfied customers, years in trade etc.,

I don't think they would be quite so strict.

The fact that the law only defines "competent" to mean "CORGI" for paid
work
means that you can infer that the intent was not to define "competent" to
mean "CORGI" for own house DIY work. Otherwise, they would have simply
defined "competent" to mean "CORGI" for all work.

That is not to say that they would expect the highest levels of
workmanship
and skill etc. You'd have to do the job just as well as a registered
fitter.
No skimping on the leak testings, or not wrapping buried pipes or leaving
flux all over the place.


But what you (and Chris Bacon) are implying is a Darwinian system which
encourages all to "have a go" because the only judgment on competency is
done AFTER the job (and, of course, most would imagine themselves to be
competent). The intent of the law is absolutely the opposite - to prevent
all from having a go so there are fewer accidents. This can only be achieved
by some system of ensuring competency is demonstrated a priori.

No, one cannot be certain of the meaning of the words yet but:

I am 100% certain the meaning of competenet person will, eventually, be
decided in court

I am 90% certain the reason for the court hearing will be because of
incompetency (biassing the judge against DIY)

I am 70% certain the judge (taking the above and the intent of the law into
account) will come down against DIY and pro CORGI, making competency almost
impossible to demonstrate outside CORGI.

Of course, that leaves a 30% chance he won't. We will, I am sure, all found
out some time!


One of the scenarios you may need to consider is that you did a competent
job weather by accident or design, it was faultless. Subsequently there
was an event and very unfortunately it lead to a series of occurances and
something bad happened.

Although you did the job competently there is going to be one hell of an
uphill struggle to clear yourself.

The FAQ is provided for illumination, information and education. It's not
intended to encourage people to have a go at testing the law in this area.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Bob Mannix wrote:



I'm sorry, I don't believe that to be true, Aside from anything else (eg
the intent of the law, the difference between "competent" (a matter of
opinion) and a "competent person" (demonstrably competent BEFORE the
event

OK.

It is tempting, but counter-productive, to cinfuse the sommon sense
meaning of a word with the meaning of a word that has been used for a
particular purpose in an act of Parliament (or any other legal document).

In law, the term common sense means nothing.

Now onto other matters.

I was cleared to work with far more dangerous gasses than the stuff that
came from the North Sea. Shouldn't that make me a competent person to work
with less dangerous gasses?

competent probably (I would guess) but, due to the strangeness of the law we
both alluded to, possibly not a "competent person"! You'd have a far better
chance of convincing them that you were than most of us would though,
especially if you have a qualification.

Bob Mannix

Dave

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Bob Mannix" writes:

I agree with you both here and the snipped bit further down. It is the
case
(as you say) that legal precedent, which will define the law in detail, is
yet to be set. My point was that I bet (if you like) that the covert
intent
is to discourage DIY

No it's not. This was discussed when the gas regs were last revised.
Some of the vested interests (e.g. CORGI) wanted it banned, but there
was no evidence that DIY gas work had resulted in any nasty incidents,
so it was not banned. The nasty incidents are caused by incompetant
traders (some CORGI but more not), lack of servicing (which banning
DIY would only make worse most likely), and leaks in the supply
network external to the premises (Transco's responsibility).


I would certainly hope (personally) this turned out to be the case! Having a
somewhat cynical outlook when it comes to the unholy alliance of vested
interests, politicians and legislators however, I would change your words to
say:

"...there was no evidence that DIY gas work had resulted in nasty incidents,
so it could not be banned outright." That doesn't mean time wont be bided
until it can be banned - look at the notices in B&Q and on equipment quoted
here, the programme that was the original subject of this thread, more and
more one has to say "no, that's not actually the law" - continuous gentle
pressure will do the trick against us eventually. Most likely in the long
term is an integration of Part P and the gas regulations (neater -
legislators like that) which is likely to be more prescriptive - when can
you remember a law that swung the pendulum the DIY way away from industry
vested interests?

As with all such legislation, those who are most likely to do a
conscientious job will not want to go against the law and those who don't
give a sh*t will carry on not giving a sh*t and nothing will be any
safer.Everyone on this ng (more or less) knows that but, wonderful people
though we are, no-one will pay any attention to us.

Bob Mannix

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
Unlike the sgns in B&Q which state that ANY gas work must be done by
a CORGI-registered person.

But they don't ask to see your certification, even if you're an old
woman buying stuff.

Mary

I'd hazard a guess that any old woman buying gas type fittings in B&Q is
likely to be *very* competent. ;-)

If she were she wouldn't be buying from B&Q ... :-)

Mary

In message , Bob Mannix
writes

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
"Bob Mannix" writes:

I agree with you both here and the snipped bit further down. It is the
case
(as you say) that legal precedent, which will define the law in detail, is
yet to be set. My point was that I bet (if you like) that the covert
intent
is to discourage DIY

No it's not. This was discussed when the gas regs were last revised.
Some of the vested interests (e.g. CORGI) wanted it banned, but there
was no evidence that DIY gas work had resulted in any nasty incidents,
so it was not banned. The nasty incidents are caused by incompetant
traders (some CORGI but more not), lack of servicing (which banning
DIY would only make worse most likely), and leaks in the supply
network external to the premises (Transco's responsibility).


I would certainly hope (personally) this turned out to be the case! Having a
somewhat cynical outlook when it comes to the unholy alliance of vested
interests, politicians and legislators however, I would change your words to
say:

"...there was no evidence that DIY gas work had resulted in nasty incidents,
so it could not be banned outright." That doesn't mean time wont be bided
until it can be banned -

Well, as I was at the HSE meeting on gas safety on which the document
was based ...

I quizzed the HSE person in charge of this aspect quite thoroughly and
he really didn't seem to think that there was any reason that it would
be banned. Of course, politics comes into the equation, but, really
there has to be some grounds on which to make diy work illegal and there
was no evidence on which to make him think it should be banned. If there
was sufficient evidence that DIY work was dangerous, then he would have
had the evidence. This is a couple of years ago now though

--
geoff

In message , Dave
writes
Bob Mannix wrote:


I'm sorry, I don't believe that to be true, Aside from anything else
(eg the intent of the law, the difference between "competent" (a
matter of opinion) and a "competent person" (demonstrably competent
BEFORE the event

OK.

It is tempting, but counter-productive, to cinfuse the sommon sense
meaning of a word with the meaning of a word that has been used for a
particular purpose in an act of Parliament (or any other legal document).

In law, the term common sense means nothing.

Now onto other matters.

I was cleared to work with far more dangerous gasses than the stuff
that came from the North Sea. Shouldn't that make me a competent person
to work with less dangerous gasses?


Gasses or gases ?

The more I look the more difficult it is to see which is correct

Gas for domestic heating is a different world from real safety on
dangerous gases isn't it. I.e. cut price, cheap and nasty in most cases


--
geoff

Ed Sirett wrote:

|| Should the matter of competence ever get tested in court then the
|| prosecution will argue that it would add up to the same requirement
|| as are needed to gain CORGI membership. The defence might take the
|| line that it meant new what you were doing and put it into practice
|| as far as the specific job was involved.

So, I've spent 30 years selling/installing/mending industrial hot/steam high
pressure cleaners. These things have diesel fired boilers of 55,000 btu +,
get up to 155 centigrade @20 litres/minute and water pressure up to 200 bar.

Would I be judged competant to install a gas cooker? According to Curry's
I'm not & have to pay a CORGI guy £85+VAT to twist a hose.

Dave

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:22:22 +0100, "Bob Mannix"
wrote:


Yes, but, again you are confusing competent and "competent" One thing that
is NOT in doubt is that the law regards CORGI's as "competent persons" (it
says so). If they turn out to be incompetent, then their CORGI registration
might be revoked, at which point they cease to be a "competent person" (but
only then) .

It is tempting, but counter-productive, to cinfuse the sommon sense meaning
of a word with the meaning of a word that has been used for a particular
purpose in an act of Parliament (or any other legal document).

Bob Mannix


When something is intended to have a legal definition in a Statutory
Instrument, it is explicitly broken out as a term and a definition is
made.

This is not the case in SI 2451 1998

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/98245102.htm


3. - (1) No person shall carry out any work in relation to a gas
fitting or gas storage vessel unless he is competent to do so.


"competent" is not defined.


However, other terms such as "responsible person" are defined.

There are also numerous references to

"member of a class of persons approved for the time being by the
Health and Safety Executive for the purposes of this paragraph."


The legislation hands off responsibility for defining said class of
persons to the HSE. It doesn't do the same for defining "competent"
or seek to do so itself.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"raden" wrote in message
...


Gasses or gases ?

Gases. And buses.

The more I look the more difficult it is to see which is correct

I'm surprised you're at all concerned about it:-)

Mary

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:22:22 +0100, "Bob Mannix"
wrote:


Yes, but, again you are confusing competent and "competent" One thing that
is NOT in doubt is that the law regards CORGI's as "competent persons" (it
says so). If they turn out to be incompetent, then their CORGI
registration
might be revoked, at which point they cease to be a "competent person"
(but
only then) .

It is tempting, but counter-productive, to cinfuse the sommon sense
meaning
of a word with the meaning of a word that has been used for a particular
purpose in an act of Parliament (or any other legal document).

Bob Mannix


When something is intended to have a legal definition in a Statutory
Instrument, it is explicitly broken out as a term and a definition is
made.

This is not the case in SI 2451 1998

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/98245102.htm


3. - (1) No person shall carry out any work in relation to a gas
fitting or gas storage vessel unless he is competent to do so.


"competent" is not defined.


However, other terms such as "responsible person" are defined.

There are also numerous references to

"member of a class of persons approved for the time being by the
Health and Safety Executive for the purposes of this paragraph."


The legislation hands off responsibility for defining said class of
persons to the HSE. It doesn't do the same for defining "competent"
or seek to do so itself.

They really do tie themselves in knots when trying to define such words,
don't they!

If they can't do it, how can we on this ng?

Mary

--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

david lang wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:

|| Should the matter of competence ever get tested in court then the
|| prosecution will argue that it would add up to the same requirement
|| as are needed to gain CORGI membership. The defence might take the
|| line that it meant new what you were doing and put it into practice
|| as far as the specific job was involved.

So, I've spent 30 years selling/installing/mending industrial hot/steam
high
pressure cleaners. These things have diesel fired boilers of 55,000 btu
+, get up to 155 centigrade @20 litres/minute and water pressure up to 200
bar.

Would I be judged competant to install a gas cooker? According to Curry's
I'm not & have to pay a CORGI guy £85+VAT to twist a hose.

You might be competent to handle high explosives, liquid oxygen, HF and
smallpox but still not know the ventilation, siting and other requirements
for installing a gas cooker.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:35:05 GMT, "david lang"
wrote:

Frank Erskine wrote:

|| Unlike the sgns in B&Q which state that ANY gas work must be done by
|| a CORGI-registered person.

It's actually worse than that Frank. I bought a quick release cooker hose
and a roll of gas tape in B&Q. Both of the packages clearly stated that it
was "illegal to fit or use the product unless CORGI registered, therefore no
instructions are given".

So even if you are competant, any instructions that might make you even more
competant have been removed.

So how come they are still selling them then?

Bizarrely, if you were to buy all the bits for altering the installation
for a dual fuel cooker - say a quick release hose, a cooker switch and
an cooker outlet, the gas parts would tell you (wrongly) that it is
illegal to fit them, but the electricity would say nothing (even though
it is (FSVO "illegal").
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:50:22 +0000, david lang wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:

|| Should the matter of competence ever get tested in court then the
|| prosecution will argue that it would add up to the same requirement
|| as are needed to gain CORGI membership. The defence might take the
|| line that it meant new what you were doing and put it into practice
|| as far as the specific job was involved.

So, I've spent 30 years selling/installing/mending industrial hot/steam high
pressure cleaners. These things have diesel fired boilers of 55,000 btu +,
get up to 155 centigrade @20 litres/minute and water pressure up to 200 bar.

Would I be judged competant to install a gas cooker? According to Curry's
I'm not & have to pay a CORGI guy £85+VAT to twist a hose.

[Note to self: Going rate is higher that I thought, must put prices up.]

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

"david lang" wrote:

These things have diesel fired boilers of 55,000 btu +,
get up to 155 centigrade @20 litres/minute and water pressure up to 200 bar.

Can we please declare this the new shower standard Dribble has to beat
with his Outdoor Mounted Shanty Town Jap Combi's ?

By eck lass shower were so good it tore off all me skin and flushed me
down plughole.

:-)


--

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...

Bob Mannix wrote:



I'm sorry, I don't believe that to be true, Aside from anything else (eg
the intent of the law, the difference between "competent" (a matter of
opinion) and a "competent person" (demonstrably competent BEFORE the
event

OK.


It is tempting, but counter-productive, to cinfuse the sommon sense
meaning of a word with the meaning of a word that has been used for a
particular purpose in an act of Parliament (or any other legal document).

In law, the term common sense means nothing.

Now onto other matters.

I was cleared to work with far more dangerous gasses than the stuff that
came from the North Sea. Shouldn't that make me a competent person to work
with less dangerous gasses?


Only if you understand domestic appliances ... I'm not denigrating your
knowledge and skills by any means but surely there's a difference between
what happens on rigs/platforms and kitchens/bathrooms? It can't be just a
matter of scale.

Would Spouse, who knows a LOT about domestic appliances, be capable of doing
the job you did on the North Sea?

Mary, I was not trained to work on any North Sea platform. :-)

I did, however work with liquid and gaseous oxygen in the aerospace
industry. Now if you can think of any explosive gas more dangerous than
that, (that is common in industry) then let me know.

If I can work with oxygen, then I am sure I can work with North Sea gas.
It's a baby, in comparison.

Dave

Mary

In message , Dave
writes
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...

Bob Mannix wrote:



I'm sorry, I don't believe that to be true, Aside from anything else
(eg the intent of the law, the difference between "competent" (a
matter of opinion) and a "competent person" (demonstrably competent
BEFORE the event

OK.


It is tempting, but counter-productive, to cinfuse the sommon sense
meaning of a word with the meaning of a word that has been used for
a particular purpose in an act of Parliament (or any other legal document).

In law, the term common sense means nothing.

Now onto other matters.

I was cleared to work with far more dangerous gasses than the stuff
that came from the North Sea. Shouldn't that make me a competent
person to work with less dangerous gasses?
Only if you understand domestic appliances ... I'm not denigrating
your knowledge and skills by any means but surely there's a
difference between what happens on rigs/platforms and
kitchens/bathrooms? It can't be just a matter of scale.
Would Spouse, who knows a LOT about domestic appliances, be capable
of doing the job you did on the North Sea?

Mary, I was not trained to work on any North Sea platform. :-)

I did, however work with liquid and gaseous oxygen in the aerospace
industry. Now if you can think of any explosive gas more dangerous than
that, (that is common in industry) then let me know.

If I can work with oxygen, then I am sure I can work with North Sea
gas. It's a baby, in comparison.

Mary

I think that what you're missing is that it's not the gas, it's the
application within which they're used

.... not that it stops me though

like most things, it's a matter of asking a few people who know and
using a bit of common sense

--
geoff

"Dave" wrote in message
...

If I can work with oxygen, then I am sure I can work with North Sea gas.
It's a baby, in comparison.

I would have thought, in my innocence, that the techniques for fitting
domestic cookers and boilers is different from what might be encountered in
the aerospace industry.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:24:39 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...

If I can work with oxygen, then I am sure I can work with North Sea gas.
It's a baby, in comparison.

I would have thought, in my innocence, that the techniques for fitting
domestic cookers and boilers is different from what might be encountered in
the aerospace industry.

I am fully prepared to admit that Dave's skills in pipe fitting far exceed
my own. However there is more to gas fitting that pipework; flueing,
ventilation and siting to name a but a few. He may or may not be familiar
with these aspects of installing a gas appliance.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:24:39 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...

If I can work with oxygen, then I am sure I can work with North Sea gas.
It's a baby, in comparison.

I would have thought, in my innocence, that the techniques for fitting
domestic cookers and boilers is different from what might be encountered
in
the aerospace industry.

I am fully prepared to admit that Dave's skills in pipe fitting far exceed
my own. However there is more to gas fitting that pipework; flueing,
ventilation and siting to name a but a few. He may or may not be familiar
with these aspects of installing a gas appliance.

That's been my point all through. Selecting individual techniques isn't the
essence, that fact that domestic requirements are different from industrial
ones is.

Mary

Ed Sirett wrote:

I am fully prepared to admit that Dave's skills in pipe fitting far exceed
my own. However there is more to gas fitting that pipework; flueing,
ventilation and siting to name a but a few. He may or may not be familiar
with these aspects of installing a gas appliance.

I did consider fitting a new boiler last year, but as you say, my skills
at pipe work and soundness might pass the test, but my knowledge of how
to get the best out of a flue told me to keep my hands in my pocket and
get a CORGI in and then get my hands out of the pocket :-)

As far as replacing pipes and gas components, I don't have a problem
until it comes to the open ends, like a flame. This is the time to get
an expert in. I have met some of them, in the past, that just looked at
the flame and turned round and told me just what the problem was.

Dave

Mary Fisher wrote:

That's been my point all through. Selecting individual techniques isn't the
essence, that fact that domestic requirements are different from industrial
ones is.

Mary, gas behaves the same way in industry as it does in a house. It is
the consequences of it getting out of its confinement that changes. :-)

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

That's been my point all through. Selecting individual techniques isn't
the essence, that fact that domestic requirements are different from
industrial ones is.

Mary, gas behaves the same way in industry as it does in a house. It is
the consequences of it getting out of its confinement that changes. :-)

Dave, I know that.

In message , Dave
writes
Ed Sirett wrote:

I am fully prepared to admit that Dave's skills in pipe fitting far exceed
my own. However there is more to gas fitting that pipework; flueing,
ventilation and siting to name a but a few. He may or may not be familiar
with these aspects of installing a gas appliance.

I did consider fitting a new boiler last year, but as you say, my
skills at pipe work and soundness might pass the test, but my knowledge
of how to get the best out of a flue told me to keep my hands in my
pocket and get a CORGI in and then get my hands out of the pocket :-)

Wimp !

A flue's only a bit of ducting - The regulations as to how it is to be
located are in every boiler installation manual

One end goes in the boiler, the other into the great wide yonder


As far as replacing pipes and gas components, I don't have a problem
until it comes to the open ends, like a flame. This is the time to get
an expert in. I have met some of them, in the past, that just looked at
the flame and turned round and told me just what the problem was.

Again, you don't actually go anywhere near the flame, it's sealed in the
combustion chamber to all intents and purposes

--
geoff

Mary Fisher wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...

Mary Fisher wrote:


That's been my point all through. Selecting individual techniques isn't
the essence, that fact that domestic requirements are different from
industrial ones is.

Mary, gas behaves the same way in industry as it does in a house. It is
the consequences of it getting out of its confinement that changes. :-)


Dave, I know that.


Oh! Sorry :-)

Dave

raden wrote:

In message , Dave
writes


I did consider fitting a new boiler last year, but as you say, my
skills at pipe work and soundness might pass the test, but my
knowledge of how to get the best out of a flue told me to keep my
hands in my pocket and get a CORGI in and then get my hands out of the
pocket :-)


Wimp !


Agreed, but I did not have the time to complete the job, otherwise I
would have. It took us many months to find a plumber to do the job as well.

A flue's only a bit of ducting - The regulations as to how it is to be
located are in every boiler installation manual

One end goes in the boiler, the other into the great wide yonder

Agreed, but this flue was going to exit into a brand new area. It only
just passed regs for coming out at the side of a gutter down pipe,
something I was not aware of at the time.

As far as replacing pipes and gas components, I don't have a problem
until it comes to the open ends, like a flame. This is the time to get
an expert in. I have met some of them, in the past, that just looked
at the flame and turned round and told me just what the problem was.

Again, you don't actually go anywhere near the flame, it's sealed in the
combustion chamber to all intents and purposes

I was thinking about our old cast iron boiler that would bang the door
on ignition though. I forgot about the modern sealed systems.

Looking back, the only problem that I might have had, was the flue
outlet getting too close to a gutter down pipe. Who would have cared? I
could move the down pipe :-)

(Kicks myself for paying all that money out)

Dave

Thanks for depressing me so much :-(

Ed Sirett wrote:


I am fully prepared to admit that Dave's skills in pipe fitting far exceed
my own.

Ed, just to correct you on this.

It was my job to test, commission and sign for flight, not bend the
pipes. I have every admiration for anyone who can bend pipes that easily.
Though I can bend pipes, I am no expert, I just know the rules to follow
:-)


Dave