AFDD's (Please sign this in case your house burns down)?

[spynage]

Hi.

Just completed my yearly asssement with Stroma.

The assesor suggested I have letter made up for customers to sign to confirm they have been told about the AFDD's if they still do not want to have them fit. (Because of cost presumably)

Fine I thought, but then no. Who wants to spend £500+ on a new consumer unit only to think they have paid for half a job and that their installation is not as safe as it could be? Am I expected to tell them that they probably wont need them but it would technically be safer if they did? Or lie and say they MUST have them or lie again and tell them they won't need them?
Or say I'm not sure but they are expensive so please sign this to relieve me of responsibility?

Seems like a very unsatisfactory situation to me. Does this not undermine me as an electrician?

Looks like the electricity council understand that AFDD's and SPD's are available but they are unwilling to make installation mandatory. Aren't they passing the buck with this and pushing responibilty all the way down the line to the customer?

What do you think? Should I draw a letter up?

If I don't explain this properly to clients then I can see myself being easily undercut in price by other electricians going down the RCD only route. Surely regs should be unambiguous in this respect?

cheers

Spynage

 

[pc1966]

Then there is the question of the AFDD test button and how reliable it is look how often the RCD test button works but fails when tested with a meter.

This!

As you say there it is putting great faith in the AFDD self-test capabilities and without any 3rd party diagnostics you are in the position of not knowing if the AFDD is flaky or there really is a sparking connection somewhere.

 

[radiohead]

The crabtree combined AFDD's give an LED indication of which element of the device has caused it to operate

 

[LastManOnline]

Have a look at this thread. I have thought about it for a long time and tend to think @Cookie and @Sisyphus (who may disavow the below!) are correct. Effectively AFDD are fraudulent and manufactured by the people who make the regs. Go figure!
AFDDs are a massive fraud - https://www.electriciansforums.net/threads/afdds-are-a-massive-fraud.175536/#post-1553501 it is a long thread and I think there was another one. What is being said is that RCD do the job of AFDD in essence (gross simplification). We are being foisted with items that are not needed and very little science to show they are. We and the public are paying hand over fist for profit for the big boys, if we don't sign up to this fraud we are out of the scheme.

It is a difficult one. I say the above as if you look at the thread and links there are very convincing arguments this really is the case. I recall Wago wanted in on the European market. Hager, who are on JPEL who write the regs, brought in the requirement for the MF mark, which stopped Wago getting in on the market as their application for MF mark was massively delayed. I have no doubt there are many other instances of this type of practice.
We need an engineering committee with no such conflict of interests to write the regs from a purely science/practice viewpoint.

Good read. There has been a certain whiff in the air regarding AFDD, s which has not been pleasant to the nostrils. The manner they have been "marketed" has, nt helped. Now in time as you say we may be provided with a bit more background supporting the reasons for their introduction. But for now I think in many sparks mind, the jury is still out on them.
I have never had direct experience of an electrical fire. The cases I have heard of were either down to overloading at the DB (rare) or caused by appliances (most common) I have never heard for instance of a case involving arcing in the fixed wiring of an installation

 

[DPG]

Good read. There has been a certain whiff in the air regarding AFDD, s which has not been pleasant to the nostrils. The manner they have been "marketed" has, nt helped. Now in time as you say we may be provided with a bit more background supporting the reasons for their introduction. But for now I think in many sparks mind, the jury is still out on them.
I have never had direct experience of an electrical fire. The cases I have heard of were either down to overloading at the DB (rare) or caused by appliances (most common) I have never heard for instance of a case involving arcing in the fixed wiring of an installation

There are definitely other cause, including loose connections. A colleague of mine attended a consumer unit last week which had overheated and caused smoke damage and charring. Suspected loose connection at bus bar or main switch which had become worse over time.

 

[Sparky Ninja]

If the regulations change then so will the advise given to clients. But at the present time nobody is going to be pursued for not fitting AFDD's, even if the place burns down assuming the current requirements of Bs7671 have been met.

My point wasn't about the advice that we give - it was about acceptance of the technology. If we keep ignoring it playing the current card, we'll find down the road that we'll have to adapt them anyway.

 

[pc1966]

They will come down in price eventually to the point they are comparable to today's RCBOs and probably future MFTs will have some test capability for that (assuming the AFDD manufacturers agree to a common sensitivity profile, etc, allowing 3rd party testing).

But for now they are a lot of money for a marginal benefit.

I may be wrong, but it would then be nice to see some impartial analysis of the percentage of fires that would be stopped by AFDD to see what the real gains are.

 

[UNG]

My point wasn't about the advice that we give - it was about acceptance of the technology. If we keep ignoring it playing the current card, we'll find down the road that we'll have to adapt them anyway.

The problem is having the tools to verify the technology and being able to identify an AFDD fault or an in circuit fault, we are currently being blindly pushed into AFDD use to protect against something similar to a lightning strike and in the recent weather how many domestic properties have been struck by lightning.

Having to adapt to them sounds like we will be forced into blindly accepting the technology, the problem of acceptance will only be solved when better and more informed information put out into the industry domain

How do you explain to a customer that a CU swap is now going to cost around £2 - 2.5k because they may or just might get a "lightning strike" in one of their circuits. You do a rewire you fit AFDD's to protect against that possible "lightning strike" what does that say to the customer about the quality of your workmanship when one result from a google AFDD search will give you

Arc Fault Detection - Hager UK

Potential Causes

Arc faults can be caused by all types of line faults and worn contacts;

• Kink / break in a cable
• Cable wear due to frequent use
• Cable damage resulting from drilling or construction work
• Incorrect wire stripping
• Incorrect bending radii
• Loose screwed connections
• Defective wall plugs
• Rodents biting cables

An AFDD will trip the circuit when a potentially hazardous arc occurs, eliminating the resulting fire hazard.

If AFDD use becomes mandatory there is the potential that basic electrical safety upgrades will not happen as the cost may be too high for people to accept

 

[pc1966]

If AFDD use becomes mandatory there is the potential that basic electrical safety upgrades will not happen as the cost may be too high for people to accept

Exactly, that would lead to far more risk!

I doubt they will become mandatory for some time, not least until costs come down and some sort of 3rd party testing becomes practical.

 

[LastManOnline]

There are definitely other cause, including loose connections. A colleague of mine attended a consumer unit last week which had overheated and caused smoke damage and charring. Suspected loose connection at bus bar or main switch which had become worse over time.

There are definitely other cause, including loose connections. A colleague of mine attended a consumer unit last week which had overheated and caused smoke damage and charring. Suspected loose connection at bus bar or main switch which had become worse over time.

Agreed. When I used "overloading" in my post, I should have said overheating. All the cases I am aware of were caused by overheating due to high resistance points resulting from either loose connections or worn switches etc

 

[LastManOnline]

They will come down in price eventually to the point they are comparable to today's RCBOs and probably future MFTs will have some test capability for that (assuming the AFDD manufacturers agree to a common sensitivity profile, etc, allowing 3rd party testing).

But for now they are a lot of money for a marginal benefit.

I may be wrong, but it would then be nice to see some impartial analysis of the percentage of fires that would be stopped by AFDD to see what the real gains are.

Far from been wrong, I think you have hit the nail right on the head. Impartial analysis would highlight to what degree is this an actual issue.? Who of us would, nt agree to enhanced protective measures.?

 

[UNG]

Good read. There has been a certain whiff in the air regarding AFDD, s which has not been pleasant to the nostrils. The manner they have been "marketed" has, nt helped. Now in time as you say we may be provided with a bit more background supporting the reasons for their introduction. But for now I think in many sparks mind, the jury is still out on them.
I have never had direct experience of an electrical fire. The cases I have heard of were either down to overloading at the DB (rare) or caused by appliances (most common) I have never heard for instance of a case involving arcing in the fixed wiring of an installation

I have been called to a few faults that have been caused overheating and burning of accessories although they have never got to the burning fire stage. I'm not sure any of them would have been detected any quicker than the RCD by an AFDD or even if the AFDD would have detected any of them at all

There are definitely other cause, including loose connections. A colleague of mine attended a consumer unit last week which had overheated and caused smoke damage and charring. Suspected loose connection at bus bar or main switch which had become worse over time.

The problem with consumer units is most of the loose connections and overheating are on the wrong side of an AFDD protected circuit and I doubt an upfront AFDD would be allowed for the same reasons an RCD isn't allowed

Agreed. When I used "overloading" in my post, I should have said overheating. All the cases I am aware of were caused by overheating due to high resistance points resulting from either loose connections or worn switches etc

To sight worn switches in a domestic setting as a cause of fires is somebody desperately clutching at straws to justify a expensive product IMO.

To prevent CU fires we were pushed into using metal CU's now we are gently (at the moment) being pushed into the fitting of AFDD's to prevent fires and the only common factor I can see is a cover up of poor workmanship and training

 

[7029 dave]

I have always said CU design is very poor, basically a skeleton board that you have to build from scratch. (modular system) No double screws on outgoing circuits/ dp main switch, not even a fixed busbar IMO all these factors have increased risk of fire, and now we are faced with more new technology.
I just think the older CU design were far better fitted 1000's, before modular.

 

[LastManOnline]

I have been called to a few faults that have been caused overheating and burning of accessories although they have never got to the burning fire stage. I'm not sure any of them would have been detected any quicker than the RCD by an AFDD or even if the AFDD would have detected any of them at all


The problem with consumer units is most of the loose connections and overheating are on the wrong side of an AFDD protected circuit and I doubt an upfront AFDD would be allowed for the same reasons an RCD isn't allowed


To sight worn switches in a domestic setting as a cause of fires is somebody desperately clutching at straws to justify a expensive product IMO.

To prevent CU fires we were pushed into using metal CU's now we are gently (at the moment) being pushed into the fitting of AFDD's to prevent fires and the only common factor I can see is a cover up of poor workmanship and training

Agreed. Good post

 

[UNG]

I have always said CU design is very poor, basically a skeleton board that you have to build from scratch. (modular system) No double screws on outgoing circuits/ dp main switch, not even a fixed busbar IMO all these factors have increased risk of fire, and now we are faced with more new technology.
I just think the older CU design were far better fitted 1000's, before modular.

The CU's we get these days are of a European design, over in Europe they tend to configure their CU's from a DIN rail box that as well as having the normal circuit protective devices has time switches, relays / contactors and other control devices and accessories all integrated into one unit, in the UK we have never really adapted to that concept although I did install some in some high end properties back in the late 80's that contained all the controls in one box. In the UK no doubt we could have preconfigured CU's but it all comes down to the manufacturing cost and the market size as to whether it is a viable cost effective option to the end user

 

[gazdkw82]

Great thread, I will have a read through the link provided at the start.

The cost outweighs the supposed unproven benefits. Asking the customer to make a decision will puts the responsibility on them and the decision will be based on cost, especially as little has been proven etc. You may get a customer who will do some research and base the decision on that but most will look to you for advice or a decision.

Until its mandatory I personally wont install them unless customer specifies.