Queries regarding Inspection Report I've just had completed

[Darkwood]

What they need to ask themselves is whether they are conducting a test simply because there is a box in which to record a result, or whether they are conducting it for some useful purpose.

In relation to your other point I actually answered it already. I pointed out that (R1+R2) testing is no less at risk of parallel paths than Zs testing.

Like I also stated as regards to this point, that is easily resolved by disconnecting the earth at both ends and testing the cable, this is not too difficult in the majority of domestic installations to do this with all circuits, this ensures no parallel paths.
Also the box ticking comment, I have given you 2 examples for the need to R1 + R2 a circuit that could be masked by an ELI result giving a false positive, this is how I was taught and the reasons given are the reasons I was taught to always do them where possible.

I therefore don't agree it is a box ticking exercise but a justified test, again I understand there are limitations expecting in commercial and industrial here that I don't disagree about but as is the theme of the thread, 'domestic' warrants a full testing routine imho, I have never heard of or met anyone that thinks otherwise over my career and I have met many contractors well until this conversation.

I still ask in your professional opinion given I have shown you 2 key areas that can be missed in your suggested approach that can leave a dangerous installation marked as safe then do you still stand by your position that it is an optional test, I also would wonder how if someone was subsequently injured or killed with a circuit you had classed as safe yet was shown to be dangerous and would have been picked up had you done the full scope of tests, where do you think you would legally stand. I grant a periodics cannot find everything and this is easily defended in court but actually omitting half the testing may be a little harder to defend imho.

 

[Strima]

I find dead testing invaluable, especially when testing ring finals.

 

[Risteard]

Like I also stated as regards to this point, that is easily resolved by disconnecting the earth at both ends and testing the cable

Unnecessary dismantling.

"The purpose of periodic inspection and testing is to provide an engineering view on whether or not the installation is in a satisfactory condition where it can continue to be used in a safe way.

"The periodic inspection and test comprises a detailed examination of the installation together with the appropriate tests. The inspection is carried out without taking apart of dismantling equipment as far as is possible. The tests made are mainly to confirm that the disconnection times stated in Chapter 41 are met, as well as highlighting other defects."

"The tests considered appropriate by the person carrying out the inspection should be carried out in accordance with the recommendations in Table 3.4 and considering sections 3.8.1 to 3.8.4 of this Guidance Note.

"See section 2.6 of this Guidance Note, noting that alternative methods may be used provided they give reliable results." (GN3)

 

[Risteard]

Also "Notes:

"4: The earth fault loop impedance test may be used to confirm the continuity of protective conductors at socket-outlets and at accessible exposed-conductive-parts of current-using equipment and accessories."

 

[Darkwood]

Also "Notes:

"4: The earth fault loop impedance test may be used to confirm the continuity of protective conductors at socket-outlets and at accessible exposed-conductive-parts of current-using equipment and accessories."

I will stand corrected then -

Well if this is what the guidance is advising then it certainly has changed since I did my college back in the eighties, I would still do R1+R2 personally, it shows you potentially dangerous issues that ELI would miss so I still don't agree with the paragraph above, it is noted as number 4: so I may have to look at the surrounding notes to see what context it is presented in, I will also raise a query with the BSI on this matter and see what their input is.
I am still interested in your professional opinion given the scenario I gave can lead to a dangerous situation getting a pass, guidance notes are just that for guidance and I presented you a reason for r1+r2 which I believes justifies it should be undertaken and also made the case that in domestic you can easily and with limited effort do a R1+R2 with parallel paths omitted.

 

[richy3333]

I will stand corrected then -

Well if this is what the guidance is advising then it certainly has changed since I did my college back in the eighties, I would still do R1+R2 personally, it shows you potentially dangerous issues that ELI would miss so I still don't agree with the paragraph above, it is noted as number 4: so I may have to look at the surrounding notes to see what context it is presented in, I will also raise a query with the BSI on this matter and see what their input is.
I am still interested in your professional opinion given the scenario I gave can lead to a dangerous situation getting a pass, guidance notes are just that for guidance and I presented you a reason for r1+r2 which I believes justifies it should be undertaken and also made the case that in domestic you can easily and with limited effort do a R1+R2 with parallel paths omitted.

Hi darkwood.
I feel Risteard is just quoting sections out context from GN3 to offer validity and /or substantiate his own view/position on I&T with EICR's. You won't change his view, he is entrenched.

I'd be interested in what his CPS thinks to his opinions, if he is with a scheme.

I'd stop debating with him. He's wont capitulate. I feel he isn't open to a change of viewpoint.

Me; I'm going to start running around domestic installs just measuring Zs values, beats doing it properly

 

[Darkwood]

I was just showing respect, I made my case, showed my position and explained why I hold that train of thought, I showed respect for his views and politely asked in my last post what he thought in his professional stance about sidestepping what I consider important steps in a testing routine because they can reveal dangerous issues that may not be detected by a ELI ... I have yet to receive his answer on that specific question, personally I can't see how one can justify routinely omitting R1+R2 tests given they give valuable info and show dangers up that an ELI cannot.

 

[Deleted account]

I feel if its initial verification then yes dead tests are essensial, but I don't believe all dead tests are essential in a circuit that has already been energised.
Yes it is good practice, but I have to agree with restart on this one. i was taught in my 2395 ( test and inspect) that earth continuity can be proven by R1 +R2 or wander lead, or just the Zs. It's the inspectors choice.

As for insulation resistance test. I agree it's pretty essensial in an EICR, but as I have stated earlier if I come across a board in such a state as I would have to spend extra time putting it right before continuing, I would not do insulation resistance and mark it as a FI. An inspector is there to inspect, not rectify.

I know we are not discussing minor works hear, but I also quite often dismiss the dead testing on minor works if it's just a light pendant or socket being swapped like for like, however I always do the Zs, RCD 5times rated, and check polarity.

 

[Risteard]

Hi darkwood.
I feel Risteard is just quoting sections out context from GN3

How exactly is that out of context?

 

[Risteard]

I was just showing respect, I made my case, showed my position and explained why I hold that train of thought, I showed respect for his views and politely asked in my last post what he thought in his professional stance about sidestepping what I consider important steps in a testing routine because they can reveal dangerous issues that may not be detected by a ELI ... I have yet to receive his answer on that specific question, personally I can't see how one can justify routinely omitting R1+R2 tests given they give valuable info and show dangers up that an ELI cannot.

It won't show up different to what a Zs test will. Answered this several times already. You are just trying to justify your view so have convinced yourself of the merit. Dead continuity testing is to ensure that an installation is safe to energise. If the installation is already energised then the point is moot. Disconnecting a cpc at both ends is most certainly unnecessary dismantling and can result in it not being reassembled correctly. It's also not how an R1+R2 test is intended to be done. The correct method will not remove parallel paths.

 

[Nigel]

The point of R1 + R2 testing is to confirm safe to energise to then carry out live testing. An utterly pointless test in a periodic inspection scenario as the danger of voltage is already present.

 

[Risteard]

The point of R1 + R2 testing is to confirm safe to energise to then carry out live testing. An utterly pointless test in a periodic inspection scenario as the danger of voltage is already present.

Precisely.

 

[Darkwood]

Well I was taught very differently and no one has yet responded to the obvious issue of not doing a R1 + R2 where the cpc in the cable may be broken and a parallel path has allowed a ELI to give a pass, if people are been taught differently now then I suspect its been based on statistics of the scenario actually causing a real risk and not by the fact a real risk doesn't exist at all.
I will ask again, if you did a periodic and tested say a shower with a broken cpc but you were unaware of it because you got a parallel path on an ELI thus you write the circuit up as a pass - how is that a safe circuit unless the parallel path is a recognised earth return, Mr Plumber could come to repair a leak on a pipe with a plastic push-fit and your parallel path goes leaving an unearthed circuit that requires one.
I personally will continue with my methods and sleep easier knowing that the integrity of the cables cpc is fine as it has been individually tested, I look at it that I am employed by customer wanting an EICR to inspect the full installation unless prior agreement has been done, they want to know circuits are safe to use, if you can get a false positive on a ELI that has found an 'unreliable' parallel path but passed then a real danger can exist.

It seems the industry goal posts have been moved somewhat here and maybe because there is more reliance on RCD protection which now usually covers most domestic circuits, like I said before though I was taught very differently so could be a generation thing but I am no longer arguing what you are taught here, just asking you to evaluate the scenario I put forward, or as I see it, the flaw in the modern method where you can walk away from a broken cpc in a cable that got a pass!

 

[Nigel]

Are you suggesting that a shower has a link from the CPC of the circuit to the pipework?

 

[Risteard]

Are you suggesting that a shower has a link from the CPC of the circuit to the pipework?

He hasn't answered how an R1+R2 test will circumvent this problem either. Electrical testing is imperfect and is why an inspection of all the senses is more important.