Opinions on inset fires stuck to the wall.

[scatmanjohn]

Just interested in what RGI's think of inset gas fires that have been stuck to the wall/back plate with silicon or fire cement.

Usually done because the surface that the fire sits against is not flat.

I Class it as At Risk because i am unable to check the flue correctly.
and its not to MI's.

In theory i could remove the silicon/fire cement but would then be left with not being able to fit the fire back correctly.

My mate says its ncs

Any thoughts?

 

[namsag]

I would love to get my hands on those halfwits that stick closure plates and fires to the wall with silicone. But think its a case of if your working on it you must gain access whatever and providing sealants meet heat standards etc they are allowed to be used to fill excess gaps that come with uneven surfaces. And reseal afterwards

 

[nickso]

i had a similar problem with a fire when i was with BG.

my safety engineer told me to leave it as ncs and not "work" on it as defined by the regs....i was only allowed to do a safety check and inform the customer i cant work on it and remove it from contract.

i must say i wasnt happy with the ncs category because in my mind it had the potential to be dangerous if the sealant was to degrade through use not to mention not being able to check the catchment area but i trusted the safety guy implicitly...a very good engineer in my opinion.

this was a number of years ago so things may have changed

 

[Agile]

i must say i wasnt happy with the ncs category because in my mind it had the potential to be dangerous if the sealant was to degrade through use not to mention not being able to check the catchment area but i trusted the safety guy implicitly...

Applying logic to the situation, the fixing method was certainly NCS but if hi-temp silicone was used then as its used by some boiler makers then it must be pretty trustworthy. Even bath silicone seems OK up to at least 150°C!

However, not being able to check the catchment area or do a flue flow test correctly means that no-one knows if the fire is safe to operate. So logically it must be potentially At Risk because it could not be tested and should have been turned off with the owners permission.

Where safety is involved I would never trust anyone implicitly and I think that he made the wrong desision. However maybe he was applying big company procedures to upset customers a little less.

Tony

 

[nickso]

i must say i wasnt happy with the ncs category because in my mind it had the potential to be dangerous if the sealant was to degrade through use not to mention not being able to check the catchment area but i trusted the safety guy implicitly...

Applying logic to the situation, the fixing method was certainly NCS but if hi-temp silicone was used then as its used by some boiler makers then it must be pretty trustworthy. Even bath silicone seems OK up to at least 150°C!

However, not being able to check the catchment area or do a flue flow test correctly means that no-one knows if the fire is safe to operate. So logically it must be potentially At Risk because it could not be tested and should have been turned off with the owners permission.

Where safety is involved I would never trust anyone implicitly and I think that he made the wrong desision. However maybe he was applying big company procedures to upset customers a little less.

Tony

are we going to go through this again tony???

in my personal experience BG does not apply any procedures when safety is involved to upset customers a little less. what would be the point of such an action? if mistakes are made then its usually individual engineers who make them....not BG's procedures which i have found in some circumstances to be over and above the regs.

yet again with no prior knowledge or experience of what you are talking about you have made a statement based on your experience.

i was a bit ambiguous when i mentioned sealant as a i didnt mention what type it was or what material it was made from.

i already stated i wasnt happy with the classification of that fire and if i had to do it again i would have put it AR. however that doesnt change my general opinion of the engineer involved. its his job to advise engineers on regulations when they cant find them or dont fully understand them....its a difficult job and he is good at it....but everyone can make mistakes...certainly if its from information over the phone. i was just out of my time as well which isnt much of an excuse i suppose.

in this instance i believe we both made a mistake. the customer fully understood the problem and the next year i went back it had been removed. that however was probably due to my explanation of the problem.

in the many thousands of jobs i did for BG i have never had a key safety defect noted or had any corrective action. that was one of two jobs i can personally think of that i should have classified differently.

 

[scatmanjohn]

I would love to get my hands on those halfwits that stick closure plates and fires to the wall with silicone. But think its a case of if your working on it you must gain access whatever and providing sealants meet heat standards etc they are allowed to be used to fill excess gaps that come with uneven surfaces. And reseal afterwards

Fair point.

I once rang baxi about it and they said its a no no.

They said if the surface is not flat then you either make it flat or don't fit it.

So if i come across any now i tell the customer what is required and if they won't have it done its At Risk.