2394/2395 C & G and EAL

[Jacko]

Hi,

I’ve passed my 2394 initial Verification with City & Guilds and have the certificate. My new company has just enrolled me on the EAL 4337/4338 which is basically the C & G 2394/2395 combined course.

I am on holiday when I’m due to sit the 4337 theory exam SO

If I ‘fail’ the 4337 because I don’t sit it, then I pass my practical and theory for the 4338 will that be ok? I will then hold certificates for City and Guilds initial verification and EAL Periodic inspection.

Is that recognised?

Thanks

 

[NMc]

The awarding bodies blame the industry. It change from the 2391-10 to 2394 & 2395 because it was claimed that those that past the 2391-10 could not do periodic reports. Now it's claimed that the industry associate the number 2391 as the exam number for inspection & testing so hense the number change back. However a new combined course was added. So now its
2391-50 = initial verification (replacement 2394)
2391-51 = periodic inspection and testing (replacement 2395)
2391-52 =combined initial and periodic inspection & testing (the original 2391-10)

 

[Pete999]

The awarding bodies blame the industry. It change from the 2391-10 to 2394 & 2395 because it was claimed that those that past the 2391-10 could not do periodic reports. Now it's claimed that the industry associate the number 2391 as the exam number for inspection & testing so hense the number change back. However a new combined course was added. So now its
2391-50 = initial verification (replacement 2394)
2391-51 = periodic inspection and testing (replacement 2395)
2391-52 =combined initial and periodic inspection & testing (the original 2391-10)

If what you say are factual, and I'm not disputing
your post in any way.
Having done the C&G 2391 way back when it meant something, I find it very disheartening, more is it a money making issueby the trainers/IET and the scams, in my opinion, yes it is, after all Testing and Inspection is what it is, whether it is intitial or periodic, you don't use different test equipment, still I suppose it has something to do with the way Electricians/DIs or whatever are trained, imagine I've done a course on Initial verification, but can't do EICRs until I've spent more money attending another course which in effect, will be much of the same. Now that's a big SCAM in my books, got the vino ready and await all the cries of derision heading my way, like water off a Ducks back. Note to oneself wish I had a job with the IET to manufacture more ways of conning Electricians out of hundreds of pounds, rant well and truly over

 

[Toneyz]

I just hope that if going down the one exam course route what is taught is equal to that of the two parts put together so that whatever route is taken the cost and knowledge at the other end is as equal.

 

[Pete999]

I just hope that if going down the one exam course route what is taught is equal to that of the two parts put together so that whatever route is taken the cost and knowledge at the other end is as equal.

So why don't they leave it as was? oh I know more money to be made.

 

[Wilko]

I've done the 2391-52 and to me it made sense to do it all in one for cost and outcome. There are different exams and practicals but you do them sequentially at the end of the course.

 

[Pete999]

I've done the 2391-52 and to me it made sense to do it all in one for cost and outcome. There are different exams and practicals but you do them sequentially at the end of the course.

Going to be controversial, I think one of the reasons for so many courses on the same subject, apart from the maney making side, is the onset of the fast track Electrician/DIs (Oh and before you start on me I realise that this is the norn nowadays OK) lack of experience, is the issue, especially, when all you're experience comes from working in a clean environment, installations clipped to a sheet of plywood, and carry out a few simple tests, jobs a good one, next candidate please, don't think it's right, but thats just me.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

To my mind, as initial verification is a requirement of BS7671 for any new work or addition/alteration to an existing installation, this should be taught as part of the core electrical qualification.
There should be no need for an additional qualification.
Conducting periodic inspections on existing installations is another matter entirely.
Some think there is no difference as all inspections should be conducted to the current Regulations.
However the fact is, that with initial verification, the inspection is to ensure the installation complies with whichever edition of the Regulations the installation was designed to.
With periodic inspections, the inspection is to ensure the installation is safe for further use.
Non-compliances should only be an issue if the present a danger.

 

[NMc]

True words spoken spinlondon. Just to let you know, C&G now have a version of the 2394(2391-50)as one of the unit opinions of the apprenticeship

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

Just to confuse things the 2391 can be sat as one of 3 different routes. the two combined as before with 2394/95, or as separate initial and periodic courses.

 

[uksrevivor]

Pete 999 i can agree with some of your comments on the qualification and when i applied to the college i was attending i applied for the city and guilds certification in initial verification and testing but was told by my tutor that it has been replaced by the college to the EAL level 3 course. I was well respected by my tutors and was told that the reason it has been replaced is that the city and guilds certification had a high failure rate on the exam and that the college does not want it reflecting there success results so they switched over to the EAL version. It was due to the long wait between the theory exam and the practical exam on the C&G up to 3 months in some cases i was told but the EAL qualification which is still recognised as the same level you sit the theory exam and then in my case 1 week later i was doing the practical examination to complete the qualification. This being said i still think those who hold the C&G qualification are more recognised and fair play to them.

 

[NMc]

Think your college has not told you the real reason. Cost! It's cheaper for training providers to deliver EAL

 

[Pete999]

I th

Pete 999 i can agree with some of your comments on the qualification and when i applied to the college i was attending i applied for the city and guilds certification in initial verification and testing but was told by my tutor that it has been replaced by the college to the EAL level 3 course. I was well respected by my tutors and was told that the reason it has been replaced is that the city and guilds certification had a high failure rate on the exam and that the college does not want it reflecting there success results so they switched over to the EAL version. It was due to the long wait between the theory exam and the practical exam on the C&G up to 3 months in some cases i was told but the EAL qualification which is still recognised as the same level you sit the theory exam and then in my case 1 week later i was doing the practical examination to complete the qualification. This being said i still think those who hold the C&G qualification are more recognised and fair play to them.

Think your reply, only goes to reinforce my thoughts, the easier the course is to pass, reflect favorably on the training provider, you said it in the first few lines of your post. To some extent I agree with HMc as well the cheaper it is to run, aligned with a better pass rate equals loads mor dosh for the training providers, ought to be stopped, and Policed better, in my opinion, anyway good luck whatever your choice.