A
accordfire
Well, Mr Napit has been busy putting his guide together for the Professional Electrician magazine. It appears we may all soon be completing EICRs rather than PIRs.
Is the general consensus really that the change of name will mean more to recipients than the current title? Most of my customers seem well aware of what a PIR is, and what its purpose is. I should imagine, however, that domestic/residential customers perhaps do not.
That's part of a wider issue to me though - the whole notion of electricity in the house is still very much that if something is plugged in, and it works, what's the problem?
We can, I'm sure, all point to installations which have run for millennia without any real attempt at bonding, or without any "safety" devices such as RCDs or RCBOs. Many of us probably still come across BS3036 fuses.
A very quick read of the forums will highlight just how "ignorant" for want of a better term, the general public can be about electrical safety. It seems gas has, in general, done much better at educating the public as to the need for periodic inspection.
I think that while the name change may mean a little more to householders, more probably needs to be done. The simplest straw pole of all might reveal something interesting.......how many qualified electricians here have current PIRs on their own homes?
Frank Bertie goes on to write about the changes to the form, and some of the main things changing are that the front page is revised to include all relevant information on the first page, further info on the second page about supply characteristics, including some that was missing from the PIR altogether.
We will now have alphabetic sections for each reported piece of data - and changes to the way we report things too - the observation codes will change too.
The schedule forms are to change, and we can choose from a schedule for a single distribution board, and one for multiple DBs, in addition to completing the Intake and Associated circuits schedule.
What do you all think of this proposed change?
Is the general consensus really that the change of name will mean more to recipients than the current title? Most of my customers seem well aware of what a PIR is, and what its purpose is. I should imagine, however, that domestic/residential customers perhaps do not.
That's part of a wider issue to me though - the whole notion of electricity in the house is still very much that if something is plugged in, and it works, what's the problem?
We can, I'm sure, all point to installations which have run for millennia without any real attempt at bonding, or without any "safety" devices such as RCDs or RCBOs. Many of us probably still come across BS3036 fuses.
A very quick read of the forums will highlight just how "ignorant" for want of a better term, the general public can be about electrical safety. It seems gas has, in general, done much better at educating the public as to the need for periodic inspection.
I think that while the name change may mean a little more to householders, more probably needs to be done. The simplest straw pole of all might reveal something interesting.......how many qualified electricians here have current PIRs on their own homes?
Frank Bertie goes on to write about the changes to the form, and some of the main things changing are that the front page is revised to include all relevant information on the first page, further info on the second page about supply characteristics, including some that was missing from the PIR altogether.
We will now have alphabetic sections for each reported piece of data - and changes to the way we report things too - the observation codes will change too.
The schedule forms are to change, and we can choose from a schedule for a single distribution board, and one for multiple DBs, in addition to completing the Intake and Associated circuits schedule.
What do you all think of this proposed change?
as if there was not enough. although the three codes may be better to understand as there is sometimes even between electricians some ambiguity of the present codes. the three seem to be a bit clearer. and the "does not conform to current regs" which always seemed a bit of a waste of time and left a bit of confusion
