Part P training . It must be stopped

[Gary Soulsby]

As most of you are aware part p was introduced in 2005. This has lead to a huge surge in people becoming part p registered installers. This is not the issue although anyone who works on electrical installations should have "sufficient" knowledge and training as to minimise risk.

The approved appretiship does this as anyone wanting to become qualified has to obtain level 2&3 technical cert and level 3 NVQ as well as sit the AM2 test.

Currently company's are offering training to become an approved domestic installer in 5 DAYS!!
That isn't even enough time to get someone entirely used to useing the regs book never mind classified as "competent"

In the end of the day these people are taking the easy option, of which I understand but that should not come at the price of safety and the loss of work of approved electricians that have spent 3-5 years training.

Find attacked the link to a petition stop the training of these under qualified "electricians"

Petition: Scrap Part P, someone with 5 days experience is not safe to work on electrics - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207481/sponsors/new?token=xUnMdAVdRq7xSzVHb68h

 

[ipf]

Actually they are quite intense. The problem is that there’s no proper evaluation of skills learnt (or not).

I could equally come back with apprenticeships basically being 1 year of getting the tea and tartan paint and two years doing the donkey work, whilst learning a bit.

Hey! Even if I did plenty donkey work, I was wiping lead joints in my first year.......From what you say you'd think I could barely wipe my ar....

 

[ipf]

It don't Pete. I did a 2393-10, I could of just read the book. A guy on my 1 day course thought it would give him the ability to notify without being in a scheme. Our trainer told him to go downstairs to the training establishment admin dept and get a refund.

Refund refused. Reason. Cheek for enrolling!

 

[Midwest]

Part P Electrical Course for Electrical Installation - https://www.electricianacademy.co.uk/partp-electrical-course

Advertising that Part P can work on shops and pubs .

That particular one is misleading.

 

[Midwest]

Part P City & Guilds 2393 1 Day Course - https://www.tradeskills4u.co.uk/courses/part-p-2393

Yep that's a 2393-10.

 

[Toneyz]

It don't Pete. I did a 2393-10, I could of just read the book. A guy on my 1 day course thought it would give him the ability to notify without being in a scheme. Our trainer told him to go downstairs to the training establishment admin dept and get a refund.

Midwest as by what you have posted that you have been on this 2393-10 (Part P) course as I have no experience of this what was taught and over how many days.

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

I have done a building regs course that covers the fabled part p. My last firm sent us on it. The only bit i found interesting was the bit on ventilation for building control compliance. It got us to work out flow rate requirements for extractors. Beyond that its nothing any of us didnt know. The test was a multi choice with your green osg. There were a couple of the wet behind the ear sort but they new their limits and spoke about knowing the reality. I dont think any of them saw themselves as anything other than a knowledgable diyer or handyman

 

[DJ Ovengloves]

@ipf Did you miss the “neither description is accurate”? Bit?

 

[Midwest]

Midwest as by what you have posted that you have been on this 2393-10 (Part P) course as I have no experience of this what was taught and over how many days.

Mine was a days course that I tagged onto an initial inspection & testing. As the initial required me to stay over, thought I might use the last day of the week, for some more input. The training was good and informative, but I probably could of learnt the same by just reading 'the electricians guide to the building reg'. That said the trainer went into a bit more detail, answered questions, and I was able to talk to other, perhaps more experienced electricians. So not all was lost. There's a multi choice exam at the end.

As said, there was one guy who thought the C&G qualification, entitled him to 'notify' without being in a scheme or paying BC heaps of money (I know some on here suggest you can, if you can convince your BC). He was told what the course content was, and it wasn't going to achieve what he was after. He left before things got going, the trainer told him to seek a refund, if he felt he had been misinformed.

It was with Trade Skills 4U (forum sponsor), the one Pete linked too. As I said there was some discussion & questions (which is not a bad thing IMO), but not to the timetable Pate suggested. I didn't pay £180, can't remember my how much I did.

Hard to say if I would recommend it, for someone strapped for cash, probably not.

 

[Spoon]

Sounds like you are against courses that are not telling

...It was with Trade Skills 4U (forum sponsor), the one Pete linked too. As I said there was some discussion & questions (which is not a bad thing IMO), but not to the timetable Pate suggested. I didn't pay £180, can't remember my how much I did.

Hard to say if I would recommend it, for someone strapped for cash, probably not.

Are you just being polite, as they are forum sponsors??
I'd be truthful and say it as it is. If they are a good organisation they will appreciate some constructive feedback... If not, they will whinge like a baby and complain.

 

[Midwest]

Sounds like you are against courses that are not telling


Are you just being polite, as they are forum sponsors??
I'd be truthful and say it as it is. If they are a good organisation they will appreciate some constructive feedback... If not, they will whinge like a baby and complain.

Nope, just making a point that they are forum sponsors, and before someone suggest I'm advertising for a outside company, and bubbles me to the mods!

I might not be 100% behind the 2393-10, but my 2392-10 was a very good course with an excellent trainer, and the facilities are also very good. I would recommend TradeSkills 4U. How about that for shameful advertising

 

[GeorgeCooke]

There is no such thing as a "part P registered installer". The only 'Part P requirements' are that all the work is carried out safely (and this can be satisfied by working to BS7671) and that the work is notified, if this is notifiable work.

 

[sevuk]

I think it's important for practising tradesmen who must undertake electrical modifications and are responsible for part of the installation work (plumbers and kitchen fitters), to get briefed on current laws and regulations. This would be in the form of Part P and BS7671 short courses.

Some of the stuff relevant to them is quite easy to find, like Appendix 15 ring final circuits can't incorporate equipment with more than a 2kw load (immersion heaters and cookers etc).

It should supplement their work, not train them to do it.

Plenty of plumbers have had to deal with circuit diagrams to make a central heating system work, and they don't need to know much about the big picture, they just need to know the bits that are relevant to what their work already entails.

I think ticket culture is to blame, as it's not the original purpose of the courses to make someone an electrician in a week.

 

[GeorgeCooke]

Some of the stuff relevant to them is quite easy to find, like Appendix 15 ring final circuits can't incorporate equipment with more than a 2kw load (immersion heaters and cookers etc).

You have written that as if it is a reg. It is not. Advisory only. Let's face it most kettles and some heaters are more than 2kW.

 

[sevuk]

Regulation 433.1.204

"The load current in any part of the circuit should unlikely to exceed for long periods the current-carrying capacity of the cable."

And then it goes on to list the suggestions of how this may be achieved. Which is where I get the 2kw from.

Kettles don't go on for long periods, and if the 20A oven isn't on the circuit there's no problem with a portable heater. What we want to avoid is having too many high profile current using equipment on one side of the ring.

All this can be briefly covered in a course for practicing tradesmen which outline the regs and explain the reasoning. In this case a bit of thought can provoked in terms of ring design as an example.

My point is these people don't need 3-5 years of electrical training when they are only concerned with a limited scope.

Though I can see why in the real world, why sometimes we'd rather they didn't touch it.

 

[Pete999]

Regulation 433.1.204

"The load current in any part of the circuit should unlikely to exceed for long periods the current-carrying capacity of the cable."

And then it goes on to list the suggestions of how this may be achieved. Which is where I get the 2kw from.

Kettles don't go on for long periods, and if the 20A oven isn't on the circuit there's no problem with a portable heater. What we want to avoid is having too many high profile current using equipment on one side of the ring.

All this can be briefly covered in a course for practicing tradesmen which outline the regs and explain the reasoning. In this case a bit of thought can provoked in terms of ring design as an example.

My point is these people don't need 3-5 years of electrical training when they are only concerned with a limited scope.

Though I can see why in the real world, why sometimes we'd rather they didn't touch it.

I believe the regulation says something along the lines of "to avoid overuse of heavy current use on a RFC, one of the ways of achieving this, would be to install anything over 2 KW on a separate circuit, doesn't actually say don't do it, like George says "it's an advisory"