IET Forums - Have I gone mad or did i just hear that right ? No plastic fuseboards.

Electronic Engineer - Telemetry Design Specialist
- Stevenage
- Competitive
MBDA Missile Systems - Together. For the future of defence. Salary: Up to £55,000 DOE + Excellent Benefits + Bonus MBDA has entered the next phase ...
- Recruiter: MBDA
Apply for this job
Through Life Engineer
- Bristol
- Competitive
Bristol MBDA Missile Systems - Deliver for a more secure tomorrow Location: Stevenage or Bristol An opportunity has arisen within MBDA's Customer S...
- Recruiter: MBDA
Apply for this job
Through Life Engineer
- Stevenage
- Competitive
Stevenage MBDA Missile Systems - Deliver for a more secure tomorrow Location: Stevenage or Bristol An opportunity has arisen within MBDA's Customer...
- Recruiter: MBDA
Apply for this job

More jobs ▶

24 October 2014 02:56 pm
weirdbeard Posts: 3116 Joined: 26 September 2011	Originally posted by: Jaymack Originally posted by: weirdbeard Hi jaymack, sorry to jump in front of dave, but for an EICR you have to compare the existing installation to the current regs.......not too long ago there was a code 4 - ie you could state that a non compliance was noted - where a code 3 is the minimum applicable code these days, and the principle in question is one of a fire risk it will take a brave inspector to issue a satisfactory judgement that theres no risk of fire posed by an existing 'plastic' enclosure? So you are saying that the plastic type requires to be changed in view of the current regulations. Poppycock! Rather inspect the internals and tighten connections. Hi jaymack, moving away from EICRs, how about installations.....not too long ago in the 16th edition an electrician could move a light switch from one side of a bedroom door to the other , these days it's pretty much taboo to do the same job without at least an RCD fused spur becoming involved, or preferably an RCBO for the whole circuit according to the guidance......will you feel comfortable signing an EIC declaring that a new circuit connected into an existing non non-ferrous ie steel, plastic enclosure, that BS7671 (as ammended) has been complied with...? ------------------------- :beer)
Top : Bottom

24 October 2014 03:15 pm
davezawadi Posts: 4259 Joined: 26 June 2002	But Jaymack, we haven't even established that the fires are due to loose connections have we? So tightening the screws won't do much good if its something else, like the MCBs getting too hot. As I said, and now ask, how many of you have found burnt loose terminals where a proper fire has not started, and so the evidence is still in place. Anything which is stated in the regs as not permitted is immediately a C1 in my book. For example undersized cables, excessive Zs above the stated limits, and all the rest. Do you really code installations as satisfactory just because they have not yet proved to be immediately dangerous? I think not. ------------------------- David BSc CEng MIET
Top : Bottom

24 October 2014 03:29 pm
weirdbeard Posts: 3116 Joined: 26 September 2011	Originally posted by: davezawadi Anything which is stated in the regs as not permitted is immediately a C1 in my book. Hi Dave i think a C1 is a bit harsh, I agree with sparking chips earlier post, either a C3, or C2, depending on whether or not the inspector considers the existing installation to be satisfactory, or not. ------------------------- :beer)
Top : Bottom

01 November 2014 08:51 am
leckie Posts: 4705 Joined: 21 November 2008	Originally posted by: davezawadi[/i Anything which is stated in the regs as not permitted is immediately a C1 in my book. For example undersized cables, excessive Zs above the stated limits, and all the rest. Do you really code installations as satisfactory just because they have not yet proved to be immediately dangerous? I think not. Well you might think that undersized cables, excessive Zs values are C1, but this document does not agree! http://www.electricalsafetyfir...t-Practice-Guide-4.pdf
Top : Bottom

01 November 2014 10:23 am
davezawadi Posts: 4259 Joined: 26 June 2002	Hi Leckie I do class all of those as dangerous, possibly only potentially dangerous. But this one is different and well beyond the content of this leaflet by a self proclaiming vested interest. Bare conductors which are possibly within reach are not permitted. They are potentially dangerous, but not immediately dangerous. These should be coded as C1. These CUs have been deemed to be likely to be the cause of fires, which are potentially dangerous, but are not permitted either. An installation in a petrol station with inadequate Ex equipment is also only potentially dangerous. All of these should be coded as C1 because none of therm are permitted in Amdt3. This dangerous classification is simply a mechanism to allow often rather inadequately informed inspectors to give codings to domestic disasters such as cracked sockets, cables hanging off the walls, unearthed metal lampholders etc. Inadequately low Zs, incorrect cables sizes etc. are serious defects with potentially serious consequences, either electric shock due to extended disconnection time or fire. The ESF have forgotten that all circuits do not have RCDs, or that overloaded cables get very hot after a period. Fires are always very serious indeed, fumes are often lethal even if someone is not burned. These seem to be considered C2 by ESF, whereas it depends on the exact circumstances, a 1.5mm cable feeding a 12kW shower (yes I have found this) is a C1, as is a Zs of 10 ohms for a ring circuit with no RCD present. This is a toy leaflet directed at inexperienced domestic installers who dare to do a EICR. In my view it is representative of the quality of the ESF and all the other offshoots of vested interests which are bringing the industry into disrepute. It has all of the experience of a non-inspector of the inexperienced kind written all over and throughout its contents. I am expecting the ESF to come out with a document saying that prohibited items are perfectly fine as long as they complied with a previous version of the regs. This is not the inspection standard! Prohibited items must be coded as though it were a new installation to the current regulations otherwise the whole process is flawed and redress may be available against the inspector if an incident occurs (and they do at one a day according the the fire service). As inspector you have a duty of care which you must take seriously or face prosecution under the HSAW act. Failure to realise a publicised danger, such as this, could lead to bankruptcy and prison very easily. Until there are a few test cases, you won't know but coroners keep taking a very serious attitude to cases like this and recommend prosecution. Look what has happened in one or two gas cases which are fairly similar in outcomes. You should be aware that I think that this CU business is fully flawed, that evidence is very weak and that much more investigation by fully competent forensic engineers is required. Unfortunately we have to operate according to the regulations even if they are not to our liking, and are a knee jerk reaction to an unverified claim. ------------------------- David BSc CEng MIET
Top : Bottom

01 November 2014 01:31 pm
leckie Posts: 4705 Joined: 21 November 2008	Well I agree that the BPG's are all just guides, and different situations call for differents codes. This is rather a long thread and I have only just scanned through the various comments and opinions. I assume your position is that WHEN the new regulation is in place, and you are carrying out an EICR, that you will be giving a C1 for plastic consumers units that you find installed. So that would be nearly every dwelling in the country. Well I think we had best wait for the regulation to be put in writing in the new book and see how the industry, insurers, HSE, etc interpret the requirements before we start reaching any firm conclusions. Regarding general codes for other items on EICR's, I think giving C1 or C2 to items should be done with great care. Claims for unnecessary cost incurred due to over zealous codes may affect PI just as much as being to lenient.
Top : Bottom

01 November 2014 01:44 pm
leckie Posts: 4705 Joined: 21 November 2008	Also, I'm not sure referring to petrol filling stations is really a fair comparison to make. The electrical inspection and testing of filling stations is covered in the "blue book" and I wouldn't imagine many contractors carrying out domestic EICR's would be carrying out Periodic Inspections to a filling station.
Top : Bottom

07 November 2014 09:19 am
GeoffBlackwell Posts: 3846 Joined: 18 January 2003	Technical document from BEAMA here enjoy . Regards Geoff Blackwell
Top : Bottom

	Technical discussion forums
·	Wiring and the regulations
·	Other and general engineering discussions
	Archived categories

New here?

See Also:

Electronic Engineer - Telemetry Design Specialist

Through Life Engineer

Through Life Engineer

On this site

Shop

Contact us

Membership

Your career

Electrical

Sectors

IET.tv

E&T Magazine

Shop

Policy

Publishing

Education

IET Venues

Communities and networks

Contact us