2395 No writen exam result ok to sign cert?

[mat155]

A colleague has been asked to undertake 5 yearly periodic inspections and certify. He has passed the 2394 and 2395 practical and online elements however awaiting writen exam results.

Company are hoping to put him out there. I have reservations. Not that I don't think he's capable more so that if anything goes wrong would he be deemed trained and competent?

Thanks

 

[Richard Burns]

The key issue is competence, often if this is the first he has experienced of periodic inspections then he will likely not have enough experience to do them effectively on his own.
However this does happen a lot and he will have to pick up on things fast in order to get through it.
If he has no prior experience then waiting for the results might be a good approach.
If he is confident and experienced in many different installations then he should be OK.
A phased approach for at least the first few inspections would be a good idea.

 

[PEG]

Presumably,these undertakings are on a paid basis,with certs provided,to customers who may need them for insurance purposes. The real crux,is whether or not,the institutions who will accept the certs for their own purpose,require a prescribed level of proof of competence ,from the individual,who is doing them.

But what do i know? I've spent the day,swaying about on top of some giant leylandi,with a chainsaw

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Qualifications are not required to conduct periodics inspections.

 

[mat155]

Thanks for these chaps. Will keep these points in mind when talking to my boss.

 

[bill01803]

Qualifications are not required to conduct periodics inspections.

The crux of the matter is proof of competence, how is that defined?
Surely the only proof is qualifications

 

[mickfred]

Qualifications are not required to conduct periodics inspections.

did not know that . Though thats what the 2395 was for

 

[Jay Sparks]

The crux of the matter is proof of competence, how is that defined?
Surely the only proof is qualifications

Having qualifications does NOT prove competence!

 

[Jay Sparks]

Having qualifications do NOT always prove competence!

Forgot the "always".

 

[Richard Burns]

The crux of the matter is proof of competence, how is that defined?
Surely the only proof is qualifications

BS7671 defines for a skilled person (electrically) that they have adequate practical skills, education and training and can perceive risks and avoid the hazards caused by electricity.
The key aspects here are adequate and the lack of the word qualifications, since education does not have to lead to qualification.
If someone had been practically trained on the job for a period and had then being performing the job independently without error and keeping up with their knowledge of the changing regulations then a paperwork trail, witness testimony and professional character references could well be enough to prove the point even without formal qualifications.
It is generally easier to just say "I have the certificate", this may not prove competence but does show some level of effort to achieve competence and seems to carry an inordinate amount of weight in industry.

 

[Des 56]

I love all this reliance these days on holding qualifications for numerous bits of the trade that should be the remit of an electrician

Since when has a electrician not been expected to be able to test his or others work?
Since when has a electrician not been expected to be able to pat test?
Since when has an electrician not been sufficiently conversant with regulations.
Since when has an electrician been inexperienced in all aspects other than domestic
Since when has an electrician understood only single phase

I can understand specialism in things like fire safety,intrinsic safety/flameproof enclosures,maintenance etc but all these bits of paper for what was once expected of the general spark , the perception by "many" that these bit qualifications are somehow the only proof of competence makes me wonder where it all went wrong

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Initially the 2391 was intended for practising Inspectors/Testers, not for persons with little or no experience.
Not sure about the 2394 and 2395, I think they were introduced because the 2391 was too difficult, especially for those with little or no experience.

 

[Jay Sparks]

I think with the 2391 you had to really read and think about the question. You had to know if it was asking about initial verification or existing installs and your answer would depend on which one you thought it was. Now taking them separately, the questions might be as hard but at least you know what they are asking. Apprentices will have the choice of doing the 2394 as part of their course but it is recommended that you have at least a few years experience of testing before attempting the 2395 but this is just a recommendation. When I did the 2391 I had been testing for over 3 years. I found that helped a lot. Plus the GN3!!

Jay

 

[PEG]

I think we may have strayed somewhat from the OP's concern...

I would be the very first,and have been on many,many threads,to point out the lack of correlation,between the holder of any cert or qual,and their competence to do so.

It would be an indication,a guide,a clue...NOT a certainty.

The question centred around whether it was acceptable for an individual,to provide a recognised proof of inspection,on a paid basis,for a customer,known or unknown.

This,and any queries regarding the scope,depth and inspectors competence,is a question for the person/institution who requested it.

I deal with folk who have very little,accepted quals or proof of competence,but who's opinion and judgement,i would not question.

I also have met many a character,in plush premises,with walls adorned with certs,quals and affiliations,whose capabilities of taking care of a hamster,i would be doubtful of.

 

[Prat P]

Thanks for these chaps. Will keep these points in mind when talking to my boss.

If something went wrong during or because of an incompetent tester the company wouldn't have a leg to stand on as they employed someone who hadn't provided proof of competence with a Qualification,that would be the real question to be answered by the company,did you do your best to ensure the safety of the employee and others? With no qualification the answer would have to be no the company didn't do their best to ensure EAWR were adhered to