Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By The toecap
A truely good morning all. Advice needed. A subby fails to replace a cap onto a gas pipe in a domestic property. Just before we re energise the gas supply somebody notices this and a disaster is avoided. Is the fact that the cap wasn't replaced reportable as a gas incident?
Answers please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
No leak, good checking procedure. No report. Free coffee for the guy who found it.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By The toecap
As is supected. But is this a dangerous occurence as for the normal F2508 and not F2508G
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
You do need to follow the subbies failure through as he should be a corgi registered gas fitter. He should have done a pressure test before this was handed over to you as complete.
The incident also potentially shows that your managers may not be managing these people correctly. Do not liven gas pipes without checking for the pressure test on the handover certification. Signing over such items as complete has to be part of the installation and checking process.
Of course the evidence is that this gas fitter is no longer competent. Potentially his employer is also not competent.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By The toecap
I agree. But what do i do. I personally would fire them off. We are going to give them a written warning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
Toecap
Who within the audit trail had the final order to energise gas? In other words, who completed the final inspection of capped areas?
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By cathal
Guys i always think its a good idea to keep your enemies closer than your friends, in this case the idea of firing people is not the solution, we should be looking at preventitive and positive ways forward to retraining all those people involved in this incident rather than pushing them out the door if this is done they then become someone else's incident. and before you go off on Bophal & Flixbourough, we have to look at the positive side to this incident it was avoided and recorded now that it is known and all the offenders are repremanded and retrained start them back into the work environment with a less onerous role and commit those less knowledgable to other key roles within thier job scope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Unfortunately they are subbies and the main contractor is not going to put all this re-training effort into the problem. They are not competent fitters and as such should not hold a corgi card. If they did not hold corgi registration in the first place the site team need personal counselling sessions on managing the problem correctly in future - presuming of course that they knew what to do in the first place!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By The toecap
The final order was rhe site manager. But, he is not corgi registered. And he decided to do a fimal check first and the **** up was discovered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Toecap
Question is whether the site manager allowed a non-corgi subbie to undertake gas work. Not whether he thought to check before pressurising
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
So on the assumption the fitter was competent and CR,it is the system that has fallen down badly; fortunately the site-manager decided to look first which in this instance was highly beneficial, and potentially life saving.
A full investigation should now be conducted to ascertain just how this happened and to move forward adopting a tough stance on ensuring it never happens again. Whilst it has been acknowledged a serious fault occurred, it is now vitally important to use those mistakes to full advantage and amend & improve future projects/procedures.
All the best with it.
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
As is increasingly common on this forum, the original question has been largely ignored as the thread coasted into a strange sort of blame game. I would not have reported it under RIDDOR but would have fully investigated it as a very serious incident.
I could read the thread as showing that the system worked as a second person made checks before making the system live, a pretty standard approach to safety critical stuff is it not? What, I wonder, did the method statement or risk assessment say about this work?
To lay blame or question competence based on this thread is to me a little too far out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Peter,
thankyou. My initial reply, within 5 minutes of the toecap's posting, said something like "no leak, good checking procedure, no report"
And I stand by that opinion. The client involved seem to have put in place a procedure for checking the quality of subcontractor work. An error was detected and corrected well before any kind of serious incident occurred.
Excellent. What happens next is between the client and the subbie.
And I make no presumptions or suggestions.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.