Amendment 3 DPC

[Guest55]

FFS , is there any good news in this god forsaken industry ?

dont answer that.

the IET couldnt even get the requirements right first time around for public vehical charging installations so more faffing with Zs values doesnt bode well for sparks having a quiet and easy life.

And theres no fookin way im buying anymore books till the 18th , i'll be working to amd 1 2011 for many years to come :-D

As for the dno's doing anything with the voltage range ? forget that , they cant even guarantee their own tns network without dumping responsibility on the consumer to TT in order to save a few quid on a cable repair.
the bottom line is that they answer to shareholders not the EU.

time to get out of this suckfest profession me thinks.........

 

[Engineer54]

Tony in some areas I have worked recently the voltages are creeping down so I can only assume that new kit has been installed and shortly we may be seeing pigs fly LOL. Speaking to a DNO engineer a couple of years ago he said they were moving towards the 230v nominal voltage as new kit was installed as the reduction to 220v was back on the table and his thinking was it will happen after all the past delays

These are ALL private industries these day's, they are not going to remove from service a perfectly good (for arguments sake) 415/240V distribution TX and replace it with an expensive 400/230V TX.

They may well be installing 400/230V TX's on New Sites and new Housing Estates and the like, but even then, i'm pretty sure they will be making use of any spare/stored 415/240v stock first!!

As for 380/22OV, NOT in your or your childrens lifetime!! lol!! Do you really think they will pay out twice to replace the countries LV distribution TX's?? Very few 1MVA or less TX's come with standard tap changing facilities, and by far the vast majority of LV distribution TX's will come within that range....

Oh, and a tap change facility comes with a pretty big whack on the TX price tag too!!

 

[Gavin A]

That change from 'competent person' to 'electrically skilled person' is potentially a huge change.

Previously you just had to be competent, with this the requirement to have the relevant education is actually written in to the regs, so no more relying on being time served if you didn't get the requisite bit of paper to confirm your knowledge.

Skilled person (electrically). A pPerson with technical knowledge or sufficient relevant education and experience
to enable him/ or her to perceive risks and to avoid dangers hazards which electricity may can create

Who cares about your 20 years industrial electrical experience if you've not got your --- bit of paper you shouldn't be working on electrics unsupervised according to this.


eta - I don't know what the strikethrough code is on this board, so the bits with an around them are the bits being struck out.

 

[Gavin A]

A few changes I've spotted.

Changes for RCD protected sockets for non domestic situations, they'll all need to be on RCD unless for a specific designated bit of equipment or where a documented risk assessment has been done for it, so lots more risk assessment paperwork for those working in those situations.

This is a significant change I think, banning the use of plastic conduit, cable ties and clips in any fire escape routes. Probably fairly sensible tbf, similar to the requirement (practice?) to use metal cable ties every so often to prevent cables on trays from dropping in a fire.

521.200 Wiring systems in escape routes 521.200.1 Wiring systems in escape routes shall be supported such that they will not be liable to premature
collapse in the event of fire. The requirements of Regulation 422.2.1 shall also apply, irrespective of the classification
of the conditions for evacuation in an emergency.
NOTE 1: Non-metallic trunking or other non-metallic means of support can fail when subject to either direct flame or hot
products of combustion. This may lead to wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes such that they hinder
evacuation and firefighting activities.
NOTE 2: This precludes the use of non-metallic cable clips, cable ties or trunking as the sole means of support. For example,
where non-metallic trunking is used, a suitable fire-resistant means of support/retention must be provided to prevent
cables falling out in the event of fire.

Any cables passing through a bathroom will need to be on an RCD even if it's not serving the bathroom. (701.411.3.3).

 

[Gavin A]

Any chance of a mode changing the thread title to 'BS7671 amendment 3 draft' or similar?

I'd not realised what this thread was about until curiosity got the better of me.

 

[Engineer54]

That change from 'competent person' to 'electrically skilled person' is potentially a huge change.

Previously you just had to be competent, with this the requirement to have the relevant education is actually written in to the regs, so no more relying on being time served if you didn't get the requisite bit of paper to confirm your knowledge. Err, where are you reading all this from, what bit of paper are you referring too then??

Skilled person (electrically). A pPerson with technical knowledge that's vague or sufficient relevant education and experience define technical knowledge, sufficient and relevant education??
to enable him/ or her to perceive risks and to avoid dangers hazards which electricity may can create. usual meaningless filling piff...

Who cares about your 20 years industrial electrical experience if you've not got your --- bit of paper you shouldn't be working on electrics unsupervised according to this. Oh dear, you really are reading far too much into a typical cover all statement


eta - I don't know what the strikethrough code is on this board, so the bits with an around them are the bits being struck out.

I don't know what you're getting all excited about here to be honest!! You could drive a double decker bus through that description of a skilled person... It say's absolutely ''Nothing'' about holding any specific qualifications, so if anything, think ''Minimal'' and so think C&G 2382 Lv 3 and you'll be bang on!! lol!!

So although you might think differently, nothing has actually changed, 17 day Whizzers and electrical trainee's will easily conform legally into this definition!! You can bet your last penny the Scams will be reading this exactly as i have.

 

[Gavin A]

I don't know what you're getting all excited about here to be honest!! You could drive a double decker bus through that description of a skilled person... It say's absolutely ''Nothing'' about holding any specific qualifications, so think ''Minimal'' and think C&G 2382 Lv 3 and you'll be bang on!!

So although you might think differently, nothing has actually changed, you can bet your last penny the Scams will be reading this exactly as i have.

you may be right, but in that case why would they change the wording?

IMO the scams will use this to insist on specific certs for operative, eg 2394 for anyone doing inspection and testing.

It certainly gives them more grounds to do so than the previous wording.

When I look at stuff like this, I do so while considering what the intent was likely to be behind the change, and the intent here clearly seems to be to ensure that everyone has what they deem to be the correct level of certification.

Certificates help them with their tick box culture of assessments, less requirement to actually assess the competence / technical knowledge of the people involved themselves (and potentially open themselves up to liability if they get that wrong), as long as they have the right certificate then they can tick that box and move on to something more important like lunch.

We've already got our main electrician on a 2394 course after being told that they now expect it even with an NVQ lvl 3, so I know it's happening already, this is just providing them with the ammunition.

 

[Engineer54]

you may be right, but in that case why would they change the wording?

IMO the scams will use this to insist on specific certs for operative, eg 2394 for anyone doing inspection and testing.

It certainly gives them more grounds to do so than the previous wording.

When I look at stuff like this, I do so while considering what the intent was likely to be behind the change, and the intent here clearly seems to be to ensure that everyone has what they deem to be the correct level of certification.

Certificates help them with their tick box culture of assessments, less requirement to actually assess the competence / technical knowledge of the people involved themselves (and potentially open themselves up to liability if they get that wrong), as long as they have the right certificate then they can tick that box and move on to something more important like lunch.

We've already got our main electrician on a 2394 course after being told that they now expect it even with an NVQ lvl 3, so I know it's happening already, this is just providing them with the ammunition.

No idea, perhaps the ITE are feeling more than a little guilty for saying and doing nothing of the deskilling and decline of the industry it is supposed to support and promote, but i doubt it.

The scams will use anything and everything that will best suit their own financial purposes, no doubt about that...lol!!!!

 

[Marvo]

Any chance of a mode changing the thread title to 'BS7671 amendment 3 draft' or similar?

I'd not realised what this thread was about until curiosity got the better of me.

I can if Mr Skelton is in agreement.

 

[SPARTYKUS]

I can if Mr Skelton is in agreement.

I prefer the latest updates to Damp Proof Courses.