The end of an era, the end of the pub sparky?

[malcolmsanford]

What the admendment to the regs are aimed at is spurs of an existing ring final circuit. If you fitted a single point off the ring without using a FCU then you are duty bound in the regs to make that single point compliant to the regs and therefore fit an RCD to the ring final circuit. Regs 411.3.3 and also 522.6.6

Most sparks that are fitting 2 or 3 extra sockets via a FCU will usually fit a RCD type and so the new sockets will conform to the BS 7671-2008

The amendment to 411.3.3 as now added that on a MIEWC it would be permitted not to fit a RCD as additional protection if the designer deemed that fitting the extra socket/sockets was not a risk to the exisiting installation

The IET have also amended reg 522.6.7 to be called 522.6.102 also covering this. So providing that the disconnection times are met the need for fitting a RCD will not be required. If the Zs is sufficiently low enough to disconnect the protection device then as the designer you are complying with the regs if you don't feel the need to fit a RCD.

It's now our call ................

 

[Voltimax]

It's now our call ................

Not yet it isn't.

This subject has been discussed for a long time now, since the new draft amendment was open to view.
Anyway, I'd be very surprised if this relaxation ever comes to pass. All the scheme providers are against it and have made it clear to the IET that it's a backward step. I sat in on a seminar on this subject at the last ELEX in Coventry, representatives from NICEIC, ELECSA, NAPIT and the electrical safety council all spoke out against it.

 

[malcolmsanford]

Thing about this admendment is that once again the IET are shifting the onus onto the electrician/designer. Thus my comment at if it did go through it would indeed be our call.

I think like a lot of electricians in the real world we would prefer clear and precise regulations espicially regarding protection, it's ok to interpret certain areas of the regs but some should be clear and concise.

Regulation 411.3.3 was a concise and definate one, it clearly outlined that domestic sockets apart from certain conditions should be RCD protected. In fact I always thought the part about skilled and instructed people was not required and that all sockets below 20amp should be rcd protected in whatever enviroment. After all you always had in the reg exception part (b).

If the admendment did go through then you open this reg upto all sorts of interpretations and in our blame someone culture any electrcian/designer not fitting an RCD will have to now prove why he didn't. Zs results of course will prove disconnection times and they will be used as the reason why one wasn't fitted, but the bottom line will always be that a RCD will make the circuit safer even with fantastic Zs results and if one was fitted would an incident whatever it would be, have happened.

Our industry at this time is under enourmous pressure, with many poorly qualified electricians now coming into the market place, who will now use this reg to cut corners and not fit an RCD to their work citing the proposed admendment. I personally hope it does not go through, but I hope more that the IET stop fence sitting and start to write clear concise and binding regulations that 90% of electricians will gladly work to.

 

[mayfair]

A quick question guys I know you all love ya regs and everyone is after a bit of extra work but ......here goes. Would it not be prefereable to fit an extra socket for some one then they go out and buy a cheapo 5 way extension and run the cable under the carpet ?????????? just wondering ! after all they are adding an extra socket without any of your OTT form filling etc. Sorry if this upsets anyone just seems strange to me.

 

[malcolmsanford]

Of course it is preferable to fit an extra socket ..............and fitting it safely is why we do all that form filling.

The question is a little obtruse to be honest as even after fitting that extra socket there is nothing stopping someone buying half a dozen adaptors and 20 extension leads and fitting them to that single socket. to run all manor of things. But as a professional sparks you know that the socket will trip on a fault or overload and that you have proved the disconnection time of the protection device by that form filling.

If that person with their extension leads burns their house down or injures someone then your from filling is going to prove that what you did was safe and correct, and it was the extensions leads that led to the problem.

 

[Guest123]

I sat in on a seminar on this subject at the last ELEX in Coventry

We must have been in he same room....and phil7677!!

 

[Darkwood]

RCD's save lives. Rewireable fuses might stop wiring fires caused by overloads but they won't help when the old duck is getting defibrilated by the frayed cable on her 3-bar heater. Surely this is a step backwards not forwards...

Try read again, the strict rules are pushing the qualified sparkies away from the work as the customers choose cheaper bodge it and run cowboys, now surely any rule that gets the cowboys back off the scene is safer and also the new rules wont make the installation more unsafe than already is a risk assessment will be done and customer adviced, this in the long run is safer than the customer dragging in a cowboy which is what is happening .

 

[Guest123]

Also with regard to the 'new' ammendment regarding RCD protection.....or not, if we decide it is not neccessary then we must note it on the certificate.

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]411.3.3 Additional protection[/FONT][/FONT]
In a.c. systems, additional protection by means of an RCD in accordance with Regulation 415.1 shall be provided for:
(i) socket-outlets with a rated current not exceeding 20 A that are for use by ordinary persons and are intended for
general use, and
(ii) mobile equipment with a current rating not exceeding 32 A for use outdoors.
An exception to (i) is permitted for:​

(a) socket-outlets for use under the supervision of skilled or instructed persons

​

​

, e.g. in some commercial or industrial locations​

, or

(b) a specific labelled or otherwise suitably identified socket-outlet provided for connection of a particular item of

equipment​

, or.

(c) minor works associated with existing socket-outlet circuits not provided with additional protection by means of

an RCD where the designer is satisfied that there would be no increased risk from the installation of the addition

or alteration. The decision shall be recorded under part 2 of the Minor Works Certificate or the comments section
of the Electrical Installation Certificate (see notes 1 and 2).​

​

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Note 1: [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]For minor works the installer is often the designer of the addition or alteration.​

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Note 2: [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]The recording of this decision does not constitute a departure from this Standard.​

 

[Octopus]

What I do find more than a little "difficult" is the seemingly lack of restrictions applied to the major DIY stores.

Just yesterday I was in one and there were 2 chaps buying parts to add a new circuit from the CU - from listening in to what they were saying they had absolutely no regard for the legislation we "approved" skilled trades people have to abide by.

Isn't about time DIY stores had more restrictions on what they can and can't sell to the public?

 

[robswainelect]

At last, perhaps the IEE are listening to those who work on the "shop floor"
It does make sense though!
Thanks for the info!