18th Edition - Poll - what are your thoughts?

[Octopus]

So we all know the unnamed, faceless bureaucrats are trying to push on us more costs via the 18th Edition so do you support these changes?

 

[freddo]

Some people think because I'm retired, I shouldn't have an opinion, so I had better keep stumn

Tell us! I want to know!

 

[Pete999]

Tell us! I want to know!

Stumn, no names no pack drill, more than my life is worth.

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

It surely won't be all circuits will need RCD protection.

 

[Rpa07]

You'll have 'more of an opinion' @Pete999 unless you retired just before the 9th came out AND I don't think that is true is it?
Experience is always valued by all on the forum - don't hang up your tool belt and mouse just yet!

 

[Pete999]

It surely won't be all circuits will need RCD protection.

Told you I'm not saying, Sorry Chris didn't mean to hijack your post, but it does look that way at the moment, but my thoughts don't matter, apparently.

 

[Midwest]

It surely won't be all circuits will need RCD protection.

All sockets (specific labelled socket & risk assessment will be deleted). All AC final circuits supplying luminaires (domestic), will require additional protection by RCD.

Doesn't leave a lot else, with the other stipulations we have now.

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

Not seen a risk assessed socket yet, seen plenty labelled which I feel works well. Mainly going to effect domestic installers then you would feel.

Isn't there something about all sockets rated 32A or less requiring RCD protection though as opposed to 20A or less

 

[Midwest]

Not seen a risk assessed socket yet, seen plenty labelled which I feel works well. Mainly going to effect domestic installers then you would feel.

Isn't there something about all sockets rated 32A or less requiring RCD protection though as opposed to 20A or less

All socket outlets not exceeding 32A. Have you not read the draft?

 

[Ian1981]

Think the risk assessment for non rcd protected sockets in non domestic installations was being abused so they will ditch it.

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

No, why would I waste my free time reading a draft of regulations which may change?

 

[Pete999]

No, why would I waste my free time reading a draft of regulations which may change?

Funny, But true, why indeed.

 

[Midwest]

No, why would I waste my free time reading a draft of regulations which may change?

Just expect somebody else to, so you can have your queries answered. Very lazy attitude. Still frees up your time to come on here

 

[JK-Electrical]

I'm with the naysayers.

 

[buzzlightyear]

We were leading till we joined the EU, look what happened then.

yeah , and bl**dy wheels fell off.

 

[plugsandsparks]

I worked out that if both my neighbours either side of me charged up their electric vehicles over night along with mine, the supply cable in the road would melt, so i think an earth rod at every house is anticipating the inevitable... lol

 

[plugsandsparks]

I worked out that if both my neighbours either side of me charged up their electric vehicles over night along with mine, the supply cable in the road would melt, so i think an earth rod at every house is anticipating the inevitable... lol

 

[telectrix]

it's OK. a few more coal fired power stations could be built to cope with the extra demand for ELV charging. this would no only reverse all climate change policies and also revitalise the coal mining industry. everyone's a winner ( except the polar bears ).

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I'd introduce a regulation preventing the use of Hager style busbar arrangements. Today I had to dismantle the entire thing just to change two MCB's for RCBO's....and then the inevitable paranoia over whether I've got all the poxy prongs correctly located in the clamps. Resorted to a mirror in the end as usual.
I'd also have the person who designed said arrangement shot by firing squad.
That'll teach him.

 

[Midwest]

I'd introduce a regulation preventing the use of Hager style busbar arrangements. Today I had to dismantle the entire thing just to change two MCB's for RCBO's....and then the inevitable paranoia over whether I've got all the poxy prongs correctly located in the clamps. Resorted to a mirror in the end as usual.
I'd also have the person who designed said arrangement shot by firing squad.
That'll teach him.

You've got me worried, added two recently with no apparent issues

 

[UNG]

If the regs need to evolve with changing technology and the powers that be feel that they need to be changed and revised every 5 minutes why has training not followed the same route
In the 36 years since the introduction of the 15th edition the training has gone from 5 years to 5 weeks and this seems to be constantly reflected in the evolution of the regs. How can this be right in an evolving industry that needs to change it's regulations with increasing regularity to keep up with technology or is it technology we are trying to keep up with when you take into account the amendment 3 changes with metal consumer units for everything
It is difficult to quantify what effect Part P has had since it's introduction as the changes introduced in the 17th edition a couple of years later only confuse any analysis of whether safety has improved or not
The regs now seem to have a set timetable for change which is quite obviously based around revenue streams and not technology change selling a new set of books every few years and a course and exam every 10 years seems to be how we are being conditioned, any cheaper options such as loose leaf regs and guidance notes will probably not be considered as it will reduce the revenue streams needed to fund the IET juggernaut
My 14th edition regs back in 1976 and didn't change for 5 years they cost me £35 the latest set of regs, guidance notes, on site guide etc has changed 3 times since it's introduction and has probably cost at least 25 times that

 

[Pete999]

If the regs need to evolve with changing technology and the powers that be feel that they need to be changed and revised every 5 minutes why has training not followed the same route
In the 36 years since the introduction of the 15th edition the training has gone from 5 years to 5 weeks and this seems to be constantly reflected in the evolution of the regs. How can this be right in an evolving industry that needs to change it's regulations with increasing regularity to keep up with technology or is it technology we are trying to keep up with when you take into account the amendment 3 changes with metal consumer units for everything
It is difficult to quantify what effect Part P has had since it's introduction as the changes introduced in the 17th edition a couple of years later only confuse any analysis of whether safety has improved or not
The regs now seem to have a set timetable for change which is quite obviously based around revenue streams and not technology change selling a new set of books every few years and a course and exam every 10 years seems to be how we are being conditioned, any cheaper options such as loose leaf regs and guidance notes will probably not be considered as it will reduce the revenue streams needed to fund the IET juggernaut
My 14th edition regs back in 1976 and didn't change for 5 years they cost me £35 the latest set of regs, guidance notes, on site guide etc has changed 3 times since it's introduction and has probably cost at least 25 times that

Good post Mate, think the crux of the changes is a monetary one More changes=more Money=more training=more money again= more short course Electricians, sorry Domestic Installers being churned out.

 

[westward10]

What evidence does anyone have these changes are for the intention of monetary gain.

 

[Pete999]

What evidence does anyone have these changes are for the intention of monetary gain.

No real evidence Westy, just overwhelming amount of opinions gleaned in this thread, I mean, imo it's not rocket science is it?
A few changes here and there, requires new documents that electricians and prospective electricians must have, if they wish to belong to any of the CP Schemes, along with the courses and exams you will likely have to attend and pass, to gain the ubiquitous 18th Edition update ( without that qualification you cannot be classed as an Electrician, (apparently).
The question you need to ask is why?, and please don't say new technology brings new rules so we have to have these new books etc, what's wrong with a suggestion I and others have made, to produce BS 7671 and all the related documents in a ring binder edition, all new updates could be printed and sold at a fraction of the cost of a new set of books, as it is at the moment every body is a winner, except of course the poor Electricians who have to bear the costs of these updates, so, please tell me, is no body is making money out of all these changes?

 

[westward10]

I never said money wasn't being made, I asked what evidence is there that this is done for the intention of making money, there is a difference. You used to be able to get a ring binder copy not sure if you still can. I said in a previous post which seemed to have attracted some dislikes if you don't like it find another job otherwise get over it.

 

[Pete999]

I never said money wasn't being made, I asked what evidence is there that this is done for the intention of making money, there is a difference. You used to be able to get a ring binder copy not sure if you still can. I said in a previous post which seemed to have attracted some dislikes if you don't like it find another job otherwise get over it.

Don't need another job, I'm retired.