Bulkhead gas fitting

[blackrose]

23 minutes ago, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

Gas work isn't just 'DIY plumbing'; it involves critical tightness, let-by, spillage, pressure, safety device, and controls testing that carry zero legal weight in a court without an official professional record to prove they were actually done following the correct procedures.

 

Well, all that may well be true, but unless it becomes easier and less onerous to find people who can actually do this work on boats then people will DIY.

 

If it's legal for a competent person to install gas themselves on a leisure boat then why does it suddenly become so difficult for someone to do the same thing on a liveaboard boat?

 

I'm all for health & safety, but like many other trades understandably trying to protect their professions there's an element of jobs for the boys here.

 

My gas system has been inspected and tested multiple times over the last 20 years and it's always passed. I've even had a couple of compliments on how well it was installed. That doesn't mean everyone should do it, but it's really not that difficult.

[agg221]

18 hours ago, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

Leaving aside that this wouldn't work because there is a prescribed way to do a tightness test, which wouldn't allow this, I recently had a boiler that was leaking gas, where I could have capped the boiler line off and kept the cooker connected, but that wasn't possible because the only test point was on the boiler.

 

'Wouldn't work' or 'is not allowed according to the prescribed method'? Not being nit-picking, genuine question because I can't see any reason why it won't work as a diagnostic method and once you know the appliance is leak tight down to the valve, the diagnostic steps move on to the rest of the system, testing through the first appliance. The pass/fail test itself still has all valves open and hence tests all potential leak pathways. FWIW, I don't disagree that a separate test point makes life a lot easier, but if there isn't one then you have to deal with what you have.

 

Alec

[Tony Brooks]

15 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

ou don’t know me very well but I am known for holding the view that there are a lot of incompetent “professionals” out there - along with some great ones of course. It is a problem in boating world that anyone can (and do) set themselves up  on the canals as a “marine engineer”, “marine electrician” and even “marine heating engineer” with absolutely zero training, qualifications or competence. I am of the view that “if you want a job done properly, do it yourself” as I have seen so much incompetence in canal world.

 

 

This I fully agree with, and it is not just on canals. I have had some shockingly bad work done by kitchen fitters employed by a very well known department store and even new build houses suffer from incompetent work.

 

My view is that the gas regs, ditto domestic electrical, and the RCR/RCD are just money making, cartel, scams that governments find easy to implement so they can wash their hands of dealing with incompetent trades people.

[nicknorman]

It’s a shame MtB is no longer with us. As a gas safe registered domestic boiler repairer, he sometimes regaled us with stories of shocking “professional” boiler installations and was of the view that there are plenty of incompetent gas safe registered people out there. Him being one (gas safe registered, not incompetent!), he was entitled to say that I thought.

[ditchcrawler]

39 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

Well, all that may well be true, but unless it becomes easier and less onerous to find people who can actually do this work on boats then people will DIY.

 

If it's legal for a competent person to install gas themselves on a leisure boat then why does it suddenly become so difficult for someone to do the same thing on a liveaboard boat?

 

I'm all for health & safety, but like many other trades understandably trying to protect their professions there's an element of jobs for the boys here.

 

My gas system has been inspected and tested multiple times over the last 20 years and it's always passed. I've even had a couple of compliments on how well it was installed. That doesn't mean everyone should do it, but it's really not that difficult.

And does it mean that 50% or more of the boats out there are dangerous because they are not inspected by a gas registered inspector 

Edited April 10 by ditchcrawler
Spilling

[MarineHeatingSolutions]

1 hour ago, agg221 said:

 

'Wouldn't work' or 'is not allowed according to the prescribed method'? Not being nit-picking, genuine question because I can't see any reason why it won't work as a diagnostic method and once you know the appliance is leak tight down to the valve, the diagnostic steps move on to the rest of the system, testing through the first appliance. The pass/fail test itself still has all valves open and hence tests all potential leak pathways. FWIW, I don't disagree that a separate test point makes life a lot easier, but if there isn't one then you have to deal with what you have.

 

Alec

I completely get the logic of treating the valves like binary gates—in a purely logical flowchart, it makes perfect sense!

However, the catch with applying that to a physical gas system comes down to the physical location of the manometer and the fluid dynamics of the gas, specifically regarding system volume. There are two major real-world hurdles where this sequence hits a brick wall:

 

Your sequence hinges on the line: "Once you have no leaks on the appliance side..." But what happens if the appliance is the leak?

If the manometer is attached to the water heater's test point, and you close its isolation valve to test it, a drop in pressure tells you the heater is leaking. But now you are stuck. Because your gauge is trapped downstream of a closed valve on a leaky appliance, you cannot open that valve to test the rest of the boat without the gas immediately escaping through the faulty heater, masking any other leaks.

 

To test the rest of the system, you would have to get your spanners out, physically disconnect the water heater, and cap off the pipework. But here is the ultimate catch: because the test point is built into the water heater, removing and capping off the appliance means you have just removed your only test point! You still wouldn't be able to test the rest of the system without installing a new test point somewhere else. If you had an independent test point on the main line, you could simply close the water heater's isolation valve, verify the rest of the system is safe, and still use your gas hob to make dinner while you wait for parts.

 

The other issue is how permissible pressure drops work. Allowances for tiny pressure drops (due to thermal changes or microscopic valve let-by) are calculated based on the volume of the entire pipework system absorbing that fluctuation. If you isolate the test point so it is only reading the internal pipework of the appliance, the total volume of gas under test is practically zero. In a microscopic volume of gas, even a fraction of a millibar of natural thermal contraction—or a perfectly acceptable microscopic let-by from the isolation valve—will manifest as a massive and immediate pressure drop on your gauge. You'll likely end up chasing false "leaks" that are actually just normal tolerances magnified by testing an inappropriately small volume of gas.

 

So while the binary logic might work on paper, in the real world, it is completely unrealistic—even if the appliance with the test point isn't faulty.

1 hour ago, blackrose said:

 

Well, all that may well be true, but unless it becomes easier and less onerous to find people who can actually do this work on boats then people will DIY.

 

If it's legal for a competent person to install gas themselves on a leisure boat then why does it suddenly become so difficult for someone to do the same thing on a liveaboard boat?

 

I'm all for health & safety, but like many other trades understandably trying to protect their professions there's an element of jobs for the boys here.

 

My gas system has been inspected and tested multiple times over the last 20 years and it's always passed. I've even had a couple of compliments on how well it was installed. That doesn't mean everyone should do it, but it's really not that difficult.

I hear where you’re coming from regarding the shortage of marine engineers, and it is a genuine frustration for boaters. But the argument that it’s "just jobs for the boys" misses the reality of what we see in the field every week.

 

The real danger isn't the physical act of joining two pipes; it's the "knowing." A DIYer might be perfectly capable of making a gas-tight joint, but they often lack the training to understand the physics of the whole system—things like burner pressures, flame failure devices, or the specific ventilation requirements that prevent a cabin from becoming a carbon monoxide trap.

 

On a boat, those risks are multiplied. Unlike a house, a boat is subject to constant vibration, damp, and salt, and space is always at a premium. On a liveaboard where appliances are in constant, daily use, that margin for error completely disappears. It isn't just about your own safety, either; in a marina or on a busy mooring, a gas incident or a CO leak puts everyone around you at risk.

 

The reason the Register exists isn't to create a closed shop; it’s to ensure there is a measurable standard of "competence" that carries legal accountability. If a registered engineer bodges a job, there is a governing body to hold them to account and an insurance trail to follow. With a DIY install, you are entirely on your own if things go wrong, and your insurance company will likely walk away the moment they see there's no official record of the work.

 

Ultimately, gas is one of the few areas where a small "logical" mistake can have fatal consequences for you and your neighbours. Taking the safest route possible by using a trained professional isn't about red tape; it’s about acknowledging the massive responsibility that comes with living on top of an explosive substance. 

[nicknorman]

34 minutes ago, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

 

The other issue is how permissible pressure drops work. Allowances for tiny pressure drops (due to thermal changes or microscopic valve let-by) are calculated based on the volume of the entire pipework system absorbing that fluctuation. If you isolate the test point so it is only reading the internal pipework of the appliance, the total volume of gas under test is practically zero. In a microscopic volume of gas, even a fraction of a millibar of natural thermal contraction—or a perfectly acceptable microscopic let-by from the isolation valve—will manifest as a massive and immediate pressure drop on your gauge. You'll likely end up chasing false "leaks" that are actually just normal tolerances magnified by testing an inappropriately small volume of gas.

 

 

Although I agree with the general thrust of your point, the bits I have put into bold are incorrect. For a certain change in temperature, the gas pressure will change a specific amount regardless of the total volume. One of the basic gas laws! And I mean the basic laws of physics, not some government law! So whilst a small volume of gas will be much more sensitive to any slight leak, there is no adverse effect in terms of temperature change.

 

And actually I'll caveat that by saying that if using a conventional manometer as opposed to a fancy electronic thingy, when eg the temperature drops a bit, the water moves down (or up, depending on which side you are looking at!) and the volume of the gas decreases as a result, meaning the pressure change is less than it would be with a large volume of gas.

Edited April 10 by nicknorman

[Phoenix_V]

2 hours ago, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

That is indeed ridiculous. Though I can imagine it's more about independently verifying that the work was done than about the technical skill to carry the work out. Isn't there a quick course you can take to become certified? It's got to be cheaper in the long run than calling somebody out to do it.

unfortunately not as the courses cover a load of other things that i will never be doing

which is a bit like the regulation that stipulates only a gas safe registered person can unscrew a test nipple

or the one that says installation of gas and more must be done to British Standards but to read the British Standard you have to pay hundreds of pounds as they are no longer available in libraries

or the one to say i cannot fit a window in my own house without the council inspecting it (for a fee)

I could go on...............................

[MarineHeatingSolutions]

2 hours ago, nicknorman said:

There is a lot of protectionism in the gas safe industry. I recall being in the queue at the local plumbers merchant buying a part for our boiler, another person in the queue was berating the staff for serving me. I can’t remember the part in question but it was nothing to do with the gas side of the boiler, might have been a diaphragm for an old fashioned hydraulic changeover valve in an ancient Combi boiler. Fortunately the staff ignored him and of course these days I would have got the part by mail order. So obviously I can see why you are riling at me pointing out what the law actually says, rather than what the gas safe industry wishes it did say. And I am not encouraging anything, I am merely pointing out what the law says, along with its logic-defying idiosyncracities.

 

Going back to your point about speeding, exceeding the speed limit is illegal, it is black and white. If you don’t get caught, you get away with it. But your speed is routinely checked by speed cameras and the police, you don’t have to be crash to be prosecuted.

 

However in the world of gas, the gas police don’t come round to your house or boat checking on every aspect of a gas installation and looking for amateur intervention. And if your activities did come to their attention, they would have to prove you were in breach of the law which would not be as easy as pointing a speed cameras and at you and reading the numbers. It seems unfeasible that you would be prosecuted for competently carrying out some work on a residential boat, and even less likely ditto on a leisure boat because for the latter, under what law could you be prosecuted and how would anyone know unless you did it incompetently and it blew up?

 

You don’t know me very well but I am known for holding the view that there are a lot of incompetent “professionals” out there - along with some great ones of course. It is a problem in boating world that anyone can (and do) set themselves up  on the canals as a “marine engineer”, “marine electrician” and even “marine heating engineer” with absolutely zero training, qualifications or competence. I am of the view that “if you want a job done properly, do it yourself” as I have seen so much incompetence in canal world.

 

Back in the 1980s I bought my first house, I got gas central heating installed but a reputable local company. The boiler was in an outhouse. After a year or two, when I went into the outhouse which was a bit cramped, I must have leant on the gas supply pipe which came adrift at a soldered joint and gas started pouring out. So the gas supply pipe was badly soldered (signs of a “dry joint”), badly supported and in a location where one came into contact with it when passing through the door. At that point I wished I had installed it myself, I would have done a better job. They had also routed the CH pipework via a shortcut OUTSIDE the house. Not ideal in North Scotland! So in summary, just because someone has a qualification on a bit of paper doesn’t mean I would trust them to do something safety critical.

 

I hear you on the frustration with bad tradespeople—honestly, anyone who’s spent time on the canals has seen their fair share of "professional" bodges, and a poorly fitted compression joint or a crushed olive is a classic example of why people lose faith in the system. But there’s a difference between "doing the work" and "owning the risk." The issue isn’t whether a careful DIYer can tighten a fitting better than a rushed apprentice; the issue is that the law doesn't care about your intentions—it cares about documented accountability.

 

You’re right that there are no "gas police" walking the towpath. But the "gas police" appear the moment there is a fire, an insurance claim, or a survey for a boat sale. If you sell that boat and a year later there is a CO incident or an explosion, the lack of a professional record means the legal "burden of proof" for competence falls entirely on you. In a criminal court, "I’ve been doing this for many years, and I'm very careful", just won't be an accepted excuse.

 

Regarding the leisure vs. residential distinction: it’s true the GSIUR 1998 regulations are more "on your side" for a private leisure boat, but the Health and Safety at Work Act and the ACOP L56 still set the "standard of care." If you bypass those standards, you are essentially self-insuring against a potential manslaughter charge.

 

Yes, the law as it stands has its ambiguities, but it really shouldn't. Whether it's a house, a boat, a forklift, or road-building equipment, anyone installing gas should be registered and competent, regardless of whether the property belongs to them or not. Instead of using those legal grey areas to argue for less safety and more DIY, we should be pushing the other way—that the law should cover every gas installation. Ultimately, it doesn't just matter what you do to yourself; you could hurt someone else, and making sure people don't get hurt can't possibly be a bad thing. 

 

How about we let everyone do their own MOT and have 30-ton lorries doing 60mph on the motorway because the driver assessed his own competence and declared the vehicle safe to use? It's absurd because you don’t self-certify when others' lives are at stake. Gas is no different; you’re asking neighbours to trust their lives to your unverified competence.

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

 

 

 

You’re right that there are no "gas police" walking the towpath. But the "gas police" appear the moment there is a fire, an insurance claim, or a survey for a boat sale. If you sell that boat and a year later there is a CO incident or an explosion, the lack of a professional record means the legal "burden of proof" for competence falls entirely on you. In a criminal court, "I’ve been doing this for many years, and I'm very careful", just won't be an accepted excuse.

 

Regarding the leisure vs. residential distinction: it’s true the GSIUR 1998 regulations are more "on your side" for a private leisure boat, but the Health and Safety at Work Act and the ACOP L56 still set the "standard of care." If you bypass those standards, you are essentially self-insuring against a potential manslaughter charge.

 

 

I'm pretty sure the health and safety at work act does not apply to domestic DIY work - the clue is in the title of the act!

As you say, if you do a bad job and cause an accident, especially one that injures people, you can expect the full force of the law. So I suppose it depends on your confidence in your ability to do the work satisfactorily.

Personally I am accustomed to taking responsibility for my own actions - I was a North Sea helicopter pilot and when you have 19 passengers down the back and are trying to land on a moving semi-sumbmersible oil rig at night, it focusses the mind on the need to do it safely. Regardless of whether there is any insurance cover or not. If I killed a few passengers, it wouldn't be much consolation to know that "never mind, you are insured".

One should bear in mind that in the notional case of a private individual doing a gas install on their own boat, at some point they will have to get a BSS examination done and so their workmanship is subject to "professional" scrutiny. As I'm sure you know, most BSS examinations can be quite cursory in many aspects, but not in my experience for the safety of the gas installation.

 

And again going back to the personal risk, do you have any statistics as to how many canal boat owners have been prosecuted for a botched DIY gas install on their boats? Ever? In the whole history of the canals? None that I am aware of. So that risk is rather hypothetical. I think someone was prosecuted for CO poisoning but that was from a diesel heater IIRC.

Edited April 10 by nicknorman

[David Mack]

53 minutes ago, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

Regarding the leisure vs. residential distinction: it’s true the GSIUR 1998 regulations are more "on your side" for a private leisure boat, but the Health and Safety at Work Act and the ACOP L56 still set the "standard of care."

I'm not sure what ACOP L65 says, but the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, does not apply to private individuals doing work on their own home or boat. It only applies to persons "at work".

What the Act actually says:

 

"Preliminary.
(1)The provisions of this Part shall have effect with a view to—

(a)securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work;

(b)protecting persons other than persons at work against risks to health or safety arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at work;"

 

And "work" is defined as:

 

Meaning of work and at work.
(1)For the purposes of this Part—

(a)“work” means work as an employee or as a self-employed person;

(b)an employee is at work throughout the time when he is in the course of his employment, but not otherwise;

[F1(bb)a person holding the office of constable is at work throughout the time when he is on duty, but not otherwise; and]

(c)a self-employed person is at work throughout such time as he devotes to work as a self-employed person;

and, subject to the following subsection, the expressions “work” and “at work”, in whatever context, shall be construed accordingly.

Meaning of work and at  the purposes of this 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

How about we let everyone do their own MOT and have 30-ton lorries doing 60mph on the motorway because the driver assessed his own competence and declared the vehicle safe to use? It's absurd because you don’t self-certify when others' lives are at stake.

 

An interesting, yet flawed, comparison.

 

There are several million vehicles on the UK roads which are MOT exempt, and their owners are effectively self-certifiying them as safe and roadworthy.

[Technical Tony]

4 hours ago, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

 

 

That is indeed ridiculous. Though I can imagine it's more about independently verifying that the work was done than about the technical skill to carry the work out. Isn't there a quick course you can take to become certified? It's got to be cheaper in the long run than calling somebody out to do it.

It's not just taking the course, you then need to be registered on the gas safe register which if my memory serves me is about £400 a year. Just having passed the test is not sufficient. Ironically, when I was working, there was no legal requirement for an engineer working on oil fired appliances to be registered with OFTEC, despite them still being perfectly capable of producing CO. The only thing you could not do was self certify a new installation. That required contacting the local building control officer to get a control number which is in itself a joke as the council employee who verified the installation had no oil skills themselves!!

[blackrose]

2 hours ago, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

But the argument that it’s "just jobs for the boys" misses the reality of what we see in the field every week.

 

 

I think you're deliberately misquoting me or at least misrepresenting my argument. I never said it's just jobs for the boys, I said there's an element of that. Others have also mentioned protectionism in the industry and I don't think that can be denied.

 

I'm sure you see some shocking practices, but that's not just the result of DIYers and I imagine the most shocking work is not on the boats of people on forums like this who are actually interested in how to do things well.

Edited April 10 by blackrose

[agg221]

2 hours ago, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

I completely get the logic of treating the valves like binary gates—in a purely logical flowchart, it makes perfect sense!

However, the catch with applying that to a physical gas system comes down to the physical location of the manometer and the fluid dynamics of the gas, specifically regarding system volume. There are two major real-world hurdles where this sequence hits a brick wall:

 

Your sequence hinges on the line: "Once you have no leaks on the appliance side..." But what happens if the appliance is the leak?

If the manometer is attached to the water heater's test point, and you close its isolation valve to test it, a drop in pressure tells you the heater is leaking. But now you are stuck. Because your gauge is trapped downstream of a closed valve on a leaky appliance, you cannot open that valve to test the rest of the boat without the gas immediately escaping through the faulty heater, masking any other leaks.

 

To test the rest of the system, you would have to get your spanners out, physically disconnect the water heater, and cap off the pipework. But here is the ultimate catch: because the test point is built into the water heater, removing and capping off the appliance means you have just removed your only test point! You still wouldn't be able to test the rest of the system without installing a new test point somewhere else. If you had an independent test point on the main line, you could simply close the water heater's isolation valve, verify the rest of the system is safe, and still use your gas hob to make dinner while you wait for parts.

 

The other issue is how permissible pressure drops work. Allowances for tiny pressure drops (due to thermal changes or microscopic valve let-by) are calculated based on the volume of the entire pipework system absorbing that fluctuation. If you isolate the test point so it is only reading the internal pipework of the appliance, the total volume of gas under test is practically zero. In a microscopic volume of gas, even a fraction of a millibar of natural thermal contraction—or a perfectly acceptable microscopic let-by from the isolation valve—will manifest as a massive and immediate pressure drop on your gauge. You'll likely end up chasing false "leaks" that are actually just normal tolerances magnified by testing an inappropriately small volume of gas.

 

So while the binary logic might work on paper, in the real world, it is completely unrealistic—even if the appliance with the test point isn't faulty.

Thanks for that. I'm not trying to pick an argument, but I don't fully agree with you. @nicknorman has already commented that any temperature changes would show less effect on volume rather than more if the very small volume of the appliance only was on test. Also, assuming you were running the test in sequence of pressurise main system/close valve to appliance/test on the appliance side then the pressure each side of the valve would be essentially equal so very small levels of let by would not show up before any meaningful changes in either temperature or let by (except in the case of a gross leak, which you would detect in other ways).

 

I do fully accept the point that you can't cap off the appliance and carry on using the rest of the system, but when our gas system failed the BSS due to a leak the examiner turned the whole thing off and put a 'do not use' notice on it, so it wasn't that different. It would of course be different if the leak was detected during the course of work by a qualified gas engineer, but presumably in theory they could just install an independent test point in that event if the customer so wished?

 

I should perhaps add that I have no domestic gas installation qualifications. All mine are for industrial gases, including plumbing in hydrogen, carbon monoxide and oxygen. These are rather different (you don't fit test points and all detection is done by atmospheric sampling down to the ppm level), but the consequences of leaks are significant!

 

Alec

[Tony Brooks]

1 hour ago, agg221 said:

I should perhaps add that I have no domestic gas installation qualifications. All mine are for industrial gases, including plumbing in hydrogen, carbon monoxide and oxygen. These are rather different (you don't fit test points and all detection is done by atmospheric sampling down to the ppm level), but the consequences of leaks are significant!

 

And that leads us back to deciding if you are competent to do your own gas work. I would suggest that your papers say that you are because you dealt with gasses that are silent killers rather than very smelly ones that only go bang within a fairly small mixture range and needing a source of ignition. I would suggest that arguing otherwise looks very much like protecting a monopoly, but if the worst did happen, judges are not best known for understanding technicalities and being sensible.

[agg221]

9 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

And that leads us back to deciding if you are competent to do your own gas work. I would suggest that your papers say that you are because you dealt with gasses that are silent killers rather than very smelly ones that only go bang within a fairly small mixture range and needing a source of ignition. I would suggest that arguing otherwise looks very much like protecting a monopoly, but if the worst did happen, judges are not best known for understanding technicalities and being sensible.

They are all dangerous but behave in different ways. Hydrogen on your average boat would be unlikely to cause a problem. It can, as per when batteries explode, but that tends to be about building up pressure rather than a leak. A slow leak would go upwards rather than collect in the bilges and would tend to go out through the roof vents. It was an interesting challenge when we were trying to do scenario planning for BEIS over converting the domestic natural gas network to hydrogen. A slow oxygen leak wouldn't do too much, but it can ignite and burn back if there is organic contamination such as oil or grease in the line so the valves have to be grease free and everything has to be thoroughly degreased before assembly. The worst would be CO which is indeed a silent killer, but now that boats have a CO alarm it would be unlikely to reach a concentration of significance before detection. I am pleased to say that none of my plumbing ever leaked!

 

Strangely, one of the most dangerous things to keep on a boat in the event of a gas leak may be a TIG set. Whilst it is possible to give yourself CO2 poisoning, e.g. from a MIG set bottle (I haven't done it from this, but I have actually managed to give myself CO2 poisoning via a very odd set of circumstances), your body reacts to a build-up of CO2 and your respiration rate increases so you would probably wake up and have a chance of survival if you exit the boat, dizzy and gasping for air. By contrast, the argon usually used in TIG welding is higher density than air so in still conditions such as inside a boat will settle. The body doesn't react to it, so you continue to breathe normally and don't notice the reducing oxygen concentration so you just black out and then die quietly without noticing anything.

 

Alec

[Alan de Enfield]

44 minutes ago, agg221 said:

A slow oxygen leak wouldn't do too much, but it can ignite and burn back if there is organic contamination such as oil or grease in the line so the valves have to be grease free and everything has to be thoroughly degreased before assembly.

 

When filling diving oxygen cylinders a great deal of care has to be taken - all of the equipment (hose, regulators, the cylinders etc if the cylinder has previously had 'air' in it it must be flushed) has to be thoroughly cleaned.

When working with Oxygen at 200 bar (about 3500 psi) it can make quite a 'bang' if it makes contact with oil or grease.

 

Edited April 10 by Alan de Enfield

[BEngo]

 LOX ( liquid oxygen) is even more demanding.    The precautions needed, and the provable cleanliness levels required before you introduce LOX to a new or refurbished system are extreme.  Over the years they have been proven to be a Good Thing.  A fire or explosion in your LOX plant will spoil your whole week!

[Sid Charles]

Conclusion to my gas leak goes like this (please remember this boat is on a farm sat on 15 inch thick railway sleepers) so I had installed the fairly straightforward gas piping, and then I had a gas safe engineer come and check it out for me, my concern was the bulkhead fitting being so awkward to reach, and I thought he would say it needs to be accessible, but he said it looked to be all correct, however he told me that the 2 Bullfinch valves were not Bullfinch, they were Midland Chandler copies made in China and were not up to regulations due to having no taper where the olive sits (they are a flat) and the olives may leak, so he told me to scrap them and find alternatives, I actually had a proper Bullfinch which I showed him, he agreed that if I fit that and find one to replace the other Chinese one all would be OK and at that point call him again to come and test, I showed him that I had a test point easily get at able, and in the gas locker a brand new Alde gas bubble tester, it was at that moment he looked at the gas tails and told me that they were old and needed replacing. So over the coming weeks I completed all the tasks but I had no gas, no rush!  Well, I eventually bought some gas 2 bottles and replaced the old chain that secures them, it was at that point I thought lets turn the gas on and see what we get, gas turned on and I press the bubble tester, loads of bubbles, I could n't understand it, my joints were so good? that evening I rang the gas safe fella and he told me I must have a leak somewhere, I came on the Forum to see what you fella's thought, one of you I think Alan said get some gas detector fluid, but it was Bank holiday, so I used washing up liquid, and no leaks, I went back down the ladder (let me tell you my legs are shot using this ladder) then I have to carry the ladder to the stern to get up to the gas locker, I tested the bubble tester and still bubbles. I turned the gas off, down the ladder and up again at the bow (legs) I walked through the boat and as I reached the rear I actually smelled the gas, my worst fears, it was that bulkhead fitting. I had little option but to do a completely new one, I had used a compression fitting on both sides and obviously, it wasn't tight, I was told to use the hollow type and I knew better? so I bit the bullet and ordered a full reel of gas pipe, another fitting and a few other things. So yesterday I painfully removed all the existing gas pipe all fixed very carefully under the gunnels. I then drilled through the new long compression fitting, I couldn't remove the old fitting so a new hole had to be drilled (on the ladder ouch) I took the nut and olive off the fitting and got it in place, then sent 15 metres of pipe through (up and down the ladder 20 times) working on my own with nobody to pull the pipe from the inside, when it was all but in I decided now was the time to create the awkward 2 bends in the pipe with my tool, I was so pleased when the bends turned out absolutely brilliant, I pushed the pipe further in to the gas locker, it was at that point I noticed something, I had not put the nut and olive on the pipe and it won't go around the bloody bends I had just made...Jesus help me. So I cut the lovely bends off and launched them, I put the olive and nut down the pipe and started again with the 2 awkward bends, and I must point out that the pipe going through the boat had to be fiddled into a nice place under the gunnels and I had to use cable ties to secure it as I moved along, the bends were made, but they were not as good as the initial one I did, I got it all to look nice and neat, connected the Alde bubble tester and made absolutely sure that every joint was real tight ( my legs were now like jelly) I turned the gas on and said a prayer...not a single bubble, what a total dick head, it has cost me dearly that most important fitting that I somehow didn't secure fully , I must add I have worked with Pneumatics, water, steam, gas the lot during my engineering career and apart from the odd poor weld I have never made a poor joint over 40 years, and I mess up on my boat, well it is a lesson, I should have listened to the fella who told me to use the straight through fitting. So I have called the gas safe guy and he is going to come over and test it all with his equipment, but I know it is now after a marathon all good to go...off to massage my legs................

Edited April 11 by Sid Charles

[Jen-in-Wellies]

What a tale! Love the honest description of the perils and pitfalls in doing boat work. 

[agg221]

I feel your pain - at least you have got there!

 

In my case it was the pipe from the day tank to the Refleks stove, which had to be fed under the engine bed and up through a small hole in the floor. The final shape was a swept bend but I had to work the whole pipe round the radius first, about three inches at a time, at full stretch lying on the floor with my hand wedged under the engine. I got the length wrong on the first attempt at the bend and had to do the whole thing again!

 

Boats are sent to try us.

 

Alec

[1st ade]

22 hours ago, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

Regarding the leisure vs. residential distinction: it’s true the GSIUR 1998 regulations are more "on your side" for a private leisure boat, but the Health and Safety at Work Act and the ACOP L56 still set the "standard of care." If you bypass those standards, you are essentially self-insuring against a potential manslaughter charge.

Slightly off-topic -I used to know a Professional DJ and noticed that all his home extension leads were PAT Tested, as was his TV, Stereo, Electric drill, kettle... I queried this and his response was "Just because you don't have to do it, doesn't mean it's not a good idea"

[wakey_wake]

On 09/04/2026 at 17:22, nicknorman said:

If doing what I proposed caused the boat to blow up then pretty much by definition you were not competent and you could and should be prosecuted. But in fact more or less the same applies to a gas safe registered person.

 

Competence and law aside, obvs real faults are better found before the explosion than after!

 

We blithely talk about "if it blows up, then (whoever made the bad joint) can be prosecuted".

How is that going for the gas-free LFP boat which did explode? 🤨

 

When wreckage is inspected, how would anyone say "this joint which now leaks was damaged in the explosion, but that one which still leaks was the cause of the explosion" with sufficient certainty?

 

On 10/04/2026 at 09:41, blackrose said:

My gas system has been inspected and tested multiple times over the last 20 years and it's always passed. I've even had a couple of compliments [...]

My gas system was inspected during 30 years, including while I bought it, but the next time Dan pointed to a mild steel elbow - it should never have been there as it can rust on the inside. All previous inspectors failed to notice.

 

My response was to de-gas sooner than planned, so I got a quick pass that way and two holes in the hull (gas drain) welded up shortly after.

 

 

On 10/04/2026 at 11:07, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

I completely get the logic of treating the valves like binary gates—in a purely logical flowchart, it makes perfect sense!

However, the catch with [...]

 

Your sequence hinges on the line: "Once you have no leaks on the appliance side..." But what happens if the appliance is the leak?

[...] You still wouldn't be able to test the rest of the system without installing a new test point somewhere else.

 

That seems simple.

 

If the whole installation has only a test point in an appliance, it is usable to check there are no leaks.

If that appliance is found to leak, the whole system has to be condemned until it is properly mended and recommissioned.

The compromise (reduced joint count inside cabin) has a fault escalation downside. I would be OK with that.

 

On 10/04/2026 at 13:54, agg221 said:

Thanks for that. I'm not trying to pick an argument, but I don't fully agree with you.

 

I'm not trying to pick an argument either, they achieve very little.

 

On the technical matters, I am interested to learn from you @MarineHeatingSolutions. Even when the relevance to my boat is zero, and I won't chance any DIY fuel gas work.

 

However where I hear you trying to defend a system that is provably broken, I'm going to join in with pushing back. Maybe eventually it can be improved?

 

On 10/04/2026 at 11:07, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

The other issue is how permissible pressure drops work. Allowances for tiny pressure drops (due to thermal changes or microscopic valve let-by) are calculated based on the volume of the entire pipework system absorbing that fluctuation. [...] You'll likely end up chasing false "leaks" that are actually just normal tolerances magnified by testing an inappropriately small volume of gas.

 

If the pressure drops by a permissible amount, I wouldn't want to ignore that. Either it holds steady or it needs fixing.

We know fuel gases sink into the cabin bilge. I don't care how microscopically slowly propane leaks into my bilge, any is too much for me.

 

 

On 10/04/2026 at 11:07, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

So while the binary logic might work on paper, in the real world, it is completely unrealistic—even if the appliance with the test point isn't faulty.

 

TBH I don't know where my test point(s) were. First survey, I was absent and clueless. Second survey it was condemned.

 

However, your chain of reason toward "test point only in appliance is unworkable" is for me a bit too close to "BSS inspectors making up new rules". Yes I understand giving reasons against, but would you go further?

 

 

On 10/04/2026 at 11:07, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

I hear where you’re coming from regarding the shortage of marine engineers, and it is a genuine frustration for boaters. But the argument that it’s "just jobs for the boys" misses the reality of what we see in the field every week.

 

The real danger isn't the physical act of joining two pipes; it's the "knowing." A DIYer might be perfectly capable of making a gas-tight joint, but [...]

 

The complaint is not that the regulations are "just jobs for the boys", but that the implementation of current regulations has inadvertently brought a component of "jobs for the boys" even when some boys turn out to be duffers. In defending that system, I'm afraid you discredit yourself.

 

We seem agreed that some licenced 'professionals' have been found to do dangerously shoddy jobs.

 

We are probably agreed that some DIYers will do stupid things like twisting mains wires together and binding in PVC tape, for the water fountain in a garden. (Found in some long grass after walking the area in bare feet!)

 

Can you agree that for a botched gas installation, the 'penalty' is far higher and more certain for the sane DIYer himself than it is for any professional installing or inspecting the work? Cue Q: why the Roman's bridges didn't fall down? A: The architect had a real interest in making sure they didn't.

 

Right there, is a valid argument for making DIY fuel gas work more accessible than it is. It is a vehicle for a small number of higher quality installations, and (as a means of reducing protectionism) could make the duffers look elsewhere for work.

Perhaps explicitly shifting some burden onto buyers, who may purchase a risk without understanding it.

Stronger perhaps than an argument for making F-gas work more accessible, because the consequences of leaks are so direct.

 

On 10/04/2026 at 11:07, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

[...DIYers...] they often lack the training to understand the physics of the whole system—things like burner pressures, flame failure devices, or the specific ventilation requirements that prevent a cabin from becoming a carbon monoxide trap.

 

On a boat, those risks are multiplied. Unlike a house, a boat is subject to constant vibration, damp, and salt, and space is always at a premium. On a liveaboard where appliances are in constant, daily use, that margin for error completely disappears. It isn't just about your own safety, either; in a marina or on a busy mooring, a gas incident or a CO leak puts everyone around you at risk.

 

I'm sorry, this reads to me as bluster to defend the indefensible.

For what the Gas Safe & BSS systems do right, praise is fair.

For what they do wrong, attempting to defend them is... well, let's put it in blunt practical terms: a reason for me to use a different heating engineer.

 

On 10/04/2026 at 11:07, MarineHeatingSolutions said:

The reason the Register exists isn't to create a closed shop; it’s to ensure there is a measurable standard of "competence" that carries legal accountability. If a registered engineer bodges a job, there is a governing body to hold them to account and an insurance trail to follow. With a DIY install, you are entirely on your own if things go wrong, and your insurance company will likely walk away the moment they see there's no official record of the work.

 

Ultimately, gas is one of the few areas where a small "logical" mistake can have fatal consequences for you and your neighbours. Taking the safest route possible by using a trained professional isn't about red tape; it’s about acknowledging the massive responsibility that comes with living on top of an explosive substance. 

 

I think we not are claiming the purpose of the regulations is closing shop or making red tape.

But to a significant extent they have those effects, which are negative consequences.

 

If they are unintended consequences, we should be looking at fixing them.

Else they are dishonestly intended consequences, and the "jobs for the boys" complaint is asbolutely valid.

 

Sadly the claim of 'legal accountability' is... what's the opposite of cherry on the cake? 💩

We can't blame any engineers for that, but I expect engineers to at least show some skepticism on the subject.

 

 

22 hours ago, agg221 said:

Strangely, one of the most dangerous things to keep on a boat in the event of a gas leak may be a TIG set.

 

Yes, and worse in a van. This is why I got magnetic hazard signs for argon.

When I put the bottle in the car, a sign goes on the driver's door to remind me to ventilate and keep a window open while moving.

 

The price of an oxygen depletion alarm seemed ridiculous - market size too small? For my occasional need, my answer is overcautious process.