Get 18th, Get testing and inspection, go to work?

[BiddeldyBwah]

Sat contemplating life as normal and started thinking about this.

Anyone can do the 18th and the testing and inspection qualifications.

So is it not theoretically possible to do those and simply specialise in testing and inspection? I mean why go through installation courses etc if you can just get a job doing testing with two paid-for courses?

Or am i missing the mark here? Do you need other specific quals to be able to do the certs? Of course i know that you won't be able to do a CPS without experience first but you could work under someone else acting as QS at a company and do testing all day long, no? I know at our company the boss acts as QS and all the NAPIT etc stuff is under him but the other qualified lads (the ones with 2391 and the 18th edition) do the testing.

 

[James]

There's a grain of truth in that, but it's not a great premise for doing inspection and testing. I wouldn't hire you or anyone with that attitude. If I am hiring someone to test and inspect, it's because I want to know exactly what is wrong with the installation. The same as when I use a measuring instrument I want to know a voltage or resistance to reasonable accuracy with excellent reliability, I don't want a half-a**ed answer that might or might not be the voltage. I don't want an inspector who might or might not know what to look for.

Any fool can be taught what length nails to use to fix a socket on the wall, but it takes ninja detective skills to know whether the nails are the right length just by looking at the heads. And you can't learn that from a book. Here's a real example you won't learn on any course but you might learn from experience. Look at the pic of the socket outlet. Seeing this should put you on increased alert for a specific potential problem with the wiring. What is it, and why is this particular socket a warning sign?
View attachment 93314

It’s more an educated guess than a “ I know the answer”

the height of mounting alone suggests that it may well be in the rubber cable age range of installation

 

[Julie.]

Yes crack on, the OP doesn't seem very interested in locating fire hazards, more in guessing and waffling:



And trolling, although it is an interesting discussion that's worth having and he does raise some relevant points.

I think that's a little unfair, I think we all go through that phase of learning a bit , perhaps comparing oneself to the worst of those around us, and believing we know more than we do.

It is the time and experience after this where we develop the real knowledge, at the initial stage, one doesn't see or understand this.

After all, when you pass your driving test at 17, you're the best driver in the world, better than any F1, or police advanced driver...

BTW, unless it's the photo I would be more concerned about "direct contact" with the mk outlet (with the clamp terminals)

 

[littlespark]

A lot of I&T is guesswork, or at least educated guesswork and further proofing of theory’s.

For Lycian’s socket…visual inspection.
first thing you notice is age of accessory. Likely wiring is of same age, lighting circuits possibly don’t have cpc and still old rewritable fuses in board. Eg no rcd. Cable may be old stranded and starting to breakdown… or this is an old socket that’s someone’s fitted as an alteration using newer cable. Need to remove to check.

Looks like it’s mounted on a skirting board, so too low for plugging in anything without damaging the plug. A damaged plug could also mean a damaged socket. The springs in the socket loose, causing bad connection on plug pins.

If same appliance used in other sockets, they too may be damaged from bent pins on plug.

The screws look a little corroded. May just be age, but could be dampness…. In which case the dampness may be in the socket as well.

Physical damage from a rigorous vacuum cleaner….



That’s just visual. I’ve not taken my testers out the box yet.

 

[Julie.]

A lot of I&T is guesswork, or at least educated guesswork and further proofing of theory’s.

For Lycian’s socket…visual inspection.
first thing you notice is age of accessory. Likely wiring is of same age, lighting circuits possibly don’t have cpc and still old rewritable fuses in board. Eg no rcd. Cable may be old stranded and starting to breakdown… or this is an old socket that’s someone’s fitted as an alteration using newer cable. Need to remove to check.

Looks like it’s mounted on a skirting board, so too low for plugging in anything without damaging the plug. A damaged plug could also mean a damaged socket. The springs in the socket loose, causing bad connection on plug pins.

If same appliance used in other sockets, they too may be damaged from bent pins on plug.

The screws look a little corroded. May just be age, but could be dampness…. In which case the dampness may be in the socket as well.

Physical damage from a rigorous vacuum cleaner….



That’s just visual. I’ve not taken my testers out the box yet.

Perhaps it is the photo then, but to me it looks like the shutter is missing, or stuck open allowing direct contact, and being of the age where it has clamp terminals it may be that the wiring is aluminium which can be subject to cracking.

But yes a whole host of alarm bells .

 

[Lucien Nunes]

Correct, This particular model of socket has rising clamp terminals and was recommended for use with aluminium cable. In this case, the cable is copper, but if I found these I would want to satisfy myself that there was no hidden aluminium in the installation. If they were localised to one area e.g. an extension I would consider prioritising that as being at higher risk of defects than the rest of the installation, until proven to be entirely copper.

Old and manky = meh. Aluminium = possible burnouts.
Opinions = meh. Detailed technical knowledge & experience = quality, value-for-money I & T.

 

[LastManOnline]

Correct, This particular model of socket has rising clamp terminals

It's a good and interesting example Lucien and pretty typical of what one can expect to find in an older installation. But back to the OP,s original point.
Would the example you point out really require a qualified spark to require "years of further training", shadowing another spark in order to determine that the socket in question clearly required "further investigation".?

 

[UNG]

Can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic but my thoughts are this is a forum for electricians. The types of electricians that come on forums after work to discuss....work, are the types that are sticklers for being the best, for being high standard, for having less tolerance of less than perfect.

I think you will find this forum is about more than that what you suggest

In the real world all this stuff isn't that important imo. There are several guys at work who are very very far from perfect sparks and their knowledge is lacking compared to most on here, but they've passed their 2391's and they do a fine job of testing commercial, domestic and industrial installs.

That is your assumption who are you comparing them to when assessing their level of competence and experience.
The 2391 is not the magic ticket to inspection and testing competence that a lot of newcomers to the industry believe it is, it would appear that the 2391 course is little more than reviewing past papers and learning the answers rather than teaching real world inspection and test
I would assume that if the people you are working with are testing domestic, commercial and industrial installations they have the breadth of knowledge and several years experience to do this

Needing several years post-training and certification to even become competent as some claim is fairly absurd imo and is trying to hold people to unrealistic standards that not many in the real world care about. And it's to the detriment of few, too. People at my work make mistakes and nobody cares, it gets spotted, rectified and we move on with our lives without poking holes in what we see as 'incompetence' when in reality it's just 'less than perfect'.

So what you are suggesting is because the client only cares about having a "Satisfactiory" certificate the quality of the inspection and test and the experience and knowledge level of the person doing it doesn't really matter
So people make mistakes where you are currently employed and nobody cares that is a worrying situation, what happens when the mistakes are not spotted until someone is seriously injured or becomes a fatality does nobody care about that or the possibility of a stay at a HM hotel
Some of what you have posted suggests that a poor ECIR is acceptable

 

[pc1966]

I'm not sure what you're saying but it appears to be 'don't hire those without vast experience' which is one of the great problems in this industry.

That is a bit of a separate issue and appears over many industries, certainly in practically every area of the science/technology that I have been involved with.

Everyone wants staff with experience (for obvious reasons) but none of the tight-fisted so-and-sos are willing to give someone a chance to get said experience

So I really understand your frustration at having worked hard to get the qualifications and find it still not quite enough for some jobs, that really is an industry problem. While I agree that for inspection you really need to have seen a lot of the wild and weird stuff that goes on outside, employers should be taking folks one who have shown the theoretical capabilities and giving them a bit of help for the first year or so to get that experience.

In many ways this site is really helpful as you do get to see some strange an unusual installations, so you can learn a bit more then covered by the current regs, but employers should be offering that bit of experienced support as needed on jobs that demand it.

 

[DPG]

I think a lot of the problem these days is that some of the younger end seem to want to just pass a couple of exams and get straight into tasks which would traditionally require experience.

What happened to starting with the basic stuff and building your experience?

As I say, it's probably a small amount of people, but it seems to be increasing. Not just in electrical jobs, but everything.

 

[UNG]

It's a good and interesting example Lucien and pretty typical of what one can expect to find in an older installation. But back to the OP,s original point.
Would the example you point out really require a qualified spark to require "years of further training", shadowing another spark in order to determine that the socket in question clearly required "further investigation".?

I think some of it is down to the inspector if you find something you have never seen before then you need to review the issue make further inquiries maybe after leaving site before committing it to the EICR

The way training is carried out now a lot of qualified sparks haven't had the 4 - 5 years apprenticeship shadowing a qualified spark to gain experience and site knowledge so is it wrong to suggest that someone shadows another spark if they have not had the benefit of an apprenticeship

 

[pc1966]

I think a lot of the problem these days is that some of the younger end seem to want to just pass a couple of exams and get straight into tasks which would traditionally require experience.

What happened to starting with the basic stuff and building your experience?

As I say, it's probably a small amount of people, but it seems to be increasing. Not just in electrical jobs, but everything.

Everyone wants to get in to a decent job after studying, it is kind of the reason to do it!

I think part of the apparent changes over the years have come from the gradual loss of apprenticeships as an entry in to a profession and towards collage/university education and exams (probably the reasons would kick off a completely different political thread). That leads to more theory and less practice, great for some professions but not always as good for ones that actually involve making/repairing stuff.

 

[LastManOnline]

The way training is carried out now a lot of qualified sparks haven't had the 4 - 5 years apprenticeship shadowing a qualified spark to gain experience and site knowledge

That is not something I have not factored in to the discussion as it's a situation I, m not familiar with. I have only known time served electricians and generally speaking by the end of your third year you are expected to be able to function with little or no oversight

so is it wrong to suggest that someone shadows another spark if they have not had the benefit of an apprenticeship

Not at all. Achknowledging areas we are inexperienced in is key to progressing. Afterall, that's the purpose the forum serves for me. It's just that the impression left from this thread is that testing and Inspection is a separate discipline to a normal electricians work. I can, t relate to that

 

[Lucien Nunes]

Would the example you point out really require a qualified spark to require "years of further training", shadowing another spark in order to determine that the socket in question clearly required "further investigation".?

My point wasn't that it was old or required 'further investigation' but that this very specific pattern of MK socket suggested the presence of aluminium wiring.. To make these connections you need to have seen a lot of wiring and a lot of sockets. Julie and I both recognised it, despite the fact that AFAIK neither of us does domestic work where aluminium is most likely to be found. I'm much more attuned to metalclad 15A which I see a lot of, and predicting the effect of each kind and brand of socket on R2 results.

That leads to more theory and less practice, great for some professions but not always as good for ones that actually involve making/repairing stuff.

My dad used to be responsible for a group of maintenance techs and engineers, and he valued experience and track record more than qualifications. His finding was that people with good quals but little experience couldn't solve the real-life problems that needed solving in an efficient and reliable way. As experience increased, so did capability and then those with more advanced quals overtook the others. As much as I protested about this idea when I was a teenager, it has proven true and I now recognise the synergy and interplay between knowledge and experience as the single most effective tool in my toolbox, especially for troubleshooting and I&T.

 

[Julie.]

... it would appear that the 2391 course is little more than reviewing past papers and learning the answers rather than teaching real world inspection and test
...

No!
Correct in the part 2 aspect, it does not teach testing, nor should it.

Part 2 comprises identifying a number of faults on a test system comprising: conduit, pyro, t+e, 3 phase, and single phase; for industrial and domestic including 3ph starters, db, 1ph rfc, lighting, with neons & electronic components, bonding and a "service head" - you need to identify these (10~15) faults, and complete the full eicr report within a set time.
(Most people are unable to find all faults, or cannot complete it in the time).

There is a multiple choice c&g typical exam, some fail on this, but it is the easy part.

There is also a visual set of slides/photos - a bit like Lucien's example, you would have to identify what all the issues are and grade them, each photo may have none, to ~10 points which need grading, you must also identify underlying potential issues forming a discussion with the examiner (questions-answers format)

Again this is a very common point of failure, answers such as "it is old" don't cut it, you would have to be able to justify every grade and underlying issues
"this type of outlet has clamp connectors"
'what's the problem with that, clamp connections are still used today?'
"because it was targeted with aluminium cables"
'what's the problem with aluminium?'
" old aluminium cables are subject to cracking, and could indicate a potential heat/fire hazard"
'so what would you grade it C2?'
"No, I can't grade something I don't know, I would either try to confirm or dispel my suspicions or identify it as FI"

Sort of thing.

Part 1 of 2391, is just like the testing of AM2, so no to little experience required.

Part 1 is initial verification
Part 2 is EICR

 

[UNG]

Joe Public wants to get problems fixed.

I'm not sure what you're saying but it appears to be 'don't hire those without vast experience' which is one of the great problems in this industry.

In the most expedient and cost effective way possible if that needs a good amount of experience and knowledge then someone without it could cost joe public a lot more and not find the fault

At the end of the day you only ever really learn by doing so imo if you have your 2391 you're good to go. That's not good enough for those who are anaI about fine and often unnecessary details (like wanting to know exactly what's wrong with something instead of simply wanting it fixed) but you're a small breed and in the real world someone who has passed the courses is going to know how to suss out most of what they come across.

The 2391 was and is intended to be an add on qualification to the basic core qualifications of an electrician and not as some seem to think a standalone qualification that allows them to immediately go forth and test, inspect and fill in EICR's having never had any onsite real world experience
Working out what is wrong with something and repairing it is one thing but understanding why it broke down and repairing it in a way that may prevent further problems is an entirely different thing but that is not what the 2391 is about

As i've said, those who come on forums to discuss work are often obsessed with 'doing it right' or being seen to be doing it 'better' than others. Rightly or wrongly that leads to unrealistic standards like needing 'several years' of testing before being deemed competent to test despite being a qualified electrician with a testing qualification. It's just internet high standards that don't apply in real life because normally people aren't so finickity.

You seem to have a very low opinion of the customers you work for and a high opinion of your own working practices.