TT eicr code?

[spark 68]

This is not about new builds though, where I would agree with you.
We are talking about existing, was the 16th so Dangerous that we are instructed to update to the latest and greatest ? no of course not.

Why then would you think that the immediate previous edition should fail just because the rules have since changed since it was installed ? I am only talking about the immediate previous edition here because if you go back further then other things start becoming C2s.

Fail is the operative word here, recommending improvement is the fairest for this situation.

My question still stands, how are you going to code existing 17th installs when amd3 kicks in with reduced max Zs's and what complies now suddenly doesn't ?

Edit: of course any new work or additions on existing you do has to comply to current regs, which I agree with, but we are talking EICRs here

 

[Badged01]

We are talking about existing, was the 16th so Dangerous that we are instructed to update to the latest and greatest ? no of course not.

Then why not just use the old disconnection times for new builds? What reason would you have for changing disconnection times with an update in regulations -- to make it less safe? I could understand perhaps if they had stated all new builds must meet these new xx times but old builds are permitted to meet these xx disconnection times?

Why then would you think that the immediate previous edition should fail just because the rules have since changed since it was installed?

That is a question only those who decided to give new disconnection times in the 17th edn can answer. I can only assume if they thought the old times were satisfactory/safe they would have left them at that? I just interpret and code as I see in the latest (17th edn) regs, which for me is C2. I have no arguement if you say C3 thats your interpretation.

I am only talking about the immediate previous edition here because if you go back further then other things start becoming C2s.

So who makes the technical/engineering decision as to what is acceptable or not? I dont think thats down to you or me! To play the devils advocate you could say the times in xx regs of 193X were acceptable then --- who's to say they arent now? Again a interpretation of whay you feel the 17th edn means.

My question still stands, how are you going to code existing 17th installs when amd3 kicks in with reduced max Zs's and what complies now suddenly doesn't ?

Good question and until I view the BYB and what it says I cant really answer. But yes, I think there will be issues in that what is an acceptable disconnection time on the last day of the BGB may not acceptable on the first day of the BYB! By your interpretation then, on issue of the BYB do all the 16th edn times become unacceptable as one removed from the previous disconnection times (BGB) or does that only occur at the 18th edn when presumably all the 17th edn times are still OK?

Food for thought, makes for an intersting debate!

 

[spark 68]

OK, let's add a bit of perspective here, as things are seldom black and white.

A fully complaint 16th ed install although not meeting 17th regs, how can you say it is potentially dangerous ? which is what a C2 is.
Fair enough it could maybe do with some improvements, improved safety is always a good thing hence a C3 IMO.


Earlier editions start to become a moot point, it was proven that old VOELCBS became ineffective because they relied on the Voltage of the MET rising to about circa 45-50V to operate, precisely what effective Earthing and bonding was designed to prevent, hence their discontinuation, a verified C2.

The regs have always been about practicality versus safety, which is why we have dual RCD boards which are not fully 17th compliant either.
If you look at the ESC guide it has quite a few "get out clauses" for earlier editions, such as undersized MB, no RCDs on S/O unless for outdoor use (C3), and a "workaround" for no CPCs on lighting etc..etc, the exception being for those things that are since proven to be potentially dangerous, ie. thermal cut-outs on immersions, VOELCBS, using the public water supply as a means of earthing, fused Neutrals etc...etc..

My earlier question about reduced Zs's btw, expect a similar "workaround" of some sort to be issued, because it would cost a massive amount of money if that was retrospectively applied to industrial and commercial buildings.

 

[Guest55]

during a periodic inspection , the condition of an electrical installation is put in comparison to the current regulations at the time of the inspection , not at the time it was constructed.

to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

and how would you absolutely confirm its age anyway , without original documents or an engraved plaque on the wall ?

so does this mean that without understanding of , lets say , the 15th ed. your deemed incompetent to test & inspect ?

how far back do you want to go ?
wheres the timeline drawn between relevent / obsolete ?

does this mean anyone under the age of 45 is probably too young to be deemed suitable / competent to carry out periodics then ..............?

bollox.

 

[spark 68]

during a periodic inspection , the condition of an electrical installation is put in comparison to the current regulations at the time.

to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

so without understanding of , lets say , the 15th ed. your deemed incompetent to test & inspect ?

which means anyone under the age of 45 is unsuitable to carry out periodics then ..............

bollox.

I didn't say that at all, I know we compare to current regs, but you should also be aware of previous requirements too, the issue is coding.

To say that a fully compliant 16th edition is potentially dangerous is also ridiculous, there may be some issues that could be improved, but to fail an install that was installed as late as 2008 ?

A tester is supposed to have above average knowledge and experience of wiring regulations not just the current edition.

If you only needed knowledge of the current edition then the (2394) IV course would be all that is required.

 

[JD6400]

I think this one is going to end up on a perpetual loop !

Spark 68 , I think that was a well levelled response . #83

Although we should all be singing from the same hymn sheet !? I also believe that as Badged01 points out , some aspects of a PIR ( or what ever they deem it to called now ) can be down to personal judgement on the more sketchy points , with in reason ! After all it will be your signature at the end of the day , if the :****: does happen to hit the fan one day !
Take a low IR reading of say around 6 , although it passes , in most instances I would not wish to leave such a latent defect , but I was taught it is a ( now ) C3 !

 

[Guest55]

If you only needed knowledge of the current edition then the (2394) IV course would be all that is required.

how do you work that out ??

the 2395 doesnt teach old versions of regs , it just has a course content with a different bias.

 

[spark 68]

how do you work that out ??

the 2395 doesnt teach old versions of regs , it just has a course content with a different bias.

GN3 states that the tester/inspector should have a sound technical knowledge and experience relevant to the nature of the installation being inspected and tested, and of BS671 and other technical standards.

Read into that what you will, how can you be competent to T&I older installs if you only know about new installs ?

The 2391 and later courses were designed for experienced sparks, until the training providers jumped on the band wagon, why do you think the failure rate is so high ?


Edit: so if you only know the 17th then just fail everything else, is that what you are saying ?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

There seems to be a distinct lack of common sense it his thread.
Do people really believe that the IET would produce a set of Regulations, that would place themselves in a position where they could face litigation for allowing unsafe installations?

At present, the Regulations allow an installation to be constructed to to an edition of the Regulations for an indefinite time, after that edition has been super superseded.
For example many aspects of the Olympic Village in Stratford were designed while the 16th edition was in force, and were constructed to the 16th edition, right up to 2012, some 4 years after the 17th edition was introduced.
It is conceivable that the modifications to the residences currently underway, are also being constructed to the 16th, although I have no personal knowledge of this.
To my knowledge, none of the Olympic site is TT, and as such the disconnection time of 0.2 secs is not an issue.

However we come back to the ridiculous situation, where according to some an installation can be safe at one minute to Midnight, yet become unsafe at one minute past. Simply because a certain date has been reached.

An Inspector should be using his or her sound judgment and experience to make informed decisions about whether an installation is fit for continued use.
What has been suggested is not sound judgment, and to my mind suggests lack of experience.

 

[spark 68]

Exactly spin,

At least badged gave his technical reasons as to why he would C2, even though I don't agree with him.

Part of the problem I feel is down to lack of experience with the earlier standards, It is not the newer sparks's fault either, but to say if it does not comply to the latest regs is an automatic fail just beggars belief.

I have enjoyed contributing to this thread immensely, it has certainly opened my eyes to prevailing attitudes though.

I have said enough on this topic now, and I will bow out after this post, while it may make me possibly unpopular for saying this, sadly the attitude of newer (and some older) sparks that everything must comply to the latest regs or is potentially unsafe, just shows the lack of training and experience now endemic in our industry as a whole.

I can understand this state of affairs with those sparks who predominately just install new stuff, but really they should not be carrying out EICRs on older properties if the attitude is to just update everything or fail automatically.

I agree that in an ideal world that updating everything would without a doubt improve the safety somewhat, but unfortunately reality rears it's ugly head.

A fascinating thread all the same, and very revealing.

 

[Des 56]

Thank goodness for 2 voices of reason in the last 2 posts in this thread

My last post as well on the subject
The arguments have been presented and in my opinion, it is not and never has been in any doubt from the onset

A compliant 16th edition installation should not be considered potentially dangerous just because the date on the calender has changed

 

[D Skelton]

OK, let's add a bit of perspective here, as things are seldom black and white.

A fully complaint 16th ed install although not meeting 17th regs, how can you say it is potentially dangerous ? which is what a C2 is.

Because the regs say so! It really is that simple

BS7617:2011 621.2 states; "Periodic inspection comprising a detailed examination of the installation shall be carried out . . . to show that the requirements for disconnection times . . . are complied with to provide for the safety of persons and livestock".

As I said in an earlier post, that says to me that if disconnection times are not met then the safety of persons and livestock is not provided for, thus making the installation unsafe. A C2, according to the regulations, is the only code that can be given.

 

[spark 68]

D I really have said enough on here already, lol

last post from me (unless I get dragged in again) lol

sigh, 621.1 where required, periodic inspection and testing of every electrical installation shall be carried in accordance with 621.2 to 5 (which includes the bit you have posted above), in order to determine so far as reasonably practicable, whether the installation is in a satisfactory condition for continued service.

it goes on to say, wherever possible the documentation arising from the initial certification and any previous periodic I&T shall be taken into account (yeah right lol).

Where no previous documentation is available, investigation of the electrical installation shall be carried out prior to carrying out the PIR.

Now what investigation do you think they mean prior to carrying out the PIR ? after all the PIR is an investigation in itself, could it be to determine what edition it is maybe ?

Why would you expect an earlier editions disconnection times to comply with a later editions, when you know for a fact that the later editions were shortened ?

In the absence of prior paperwork for a known earlier edition, then I would look to the earlier standards to determine what was acceptable then, this is the beginning of my investigation prior to the PIR.

And on the off chance that an original EIC existed (lol) , and your current test results happened to reasonably match it, then what ? after all we are only looking for significant detioriation.

 

[Engineer54]

Because the regs say so! It really is that simple

BS7617:2011 621.2 states; "Periodic inspection comprising a detailed examination of the installation shall be carried out . . . to show that the requirements for disconnection times . . . are complied with to provide for the safety of persons and livestock".

As I said in an earlier post, that says to me that if disconnection times are not met then the safety of persons and livestock is not provided for, thus making the installation unsafe. A C2, according to the regulations, is the only code that can be given.

As i pointed out before, what detailed examination is going to distingquish between a trip time of 0.4 and 0.2 sec, when an RCD device is the main source of earth fault protection?? Same goes for a L-N fault protected by a MCB.

 

[D Skelton]

As i pointed out before, what detailed examination is going to distingquish between a trip time of 0.4 and 0.2 sec, when an RCD device is the main source of earth fault protection?? Same goes for a L-N fault protected by a MCB.

I'd examine the supply characteristics, in detail lol. If TT then 0.2s maximum disconnection time for general circuits where an RCD is used for fault protection applies. If that maximum permitted disconnection time cannot be met, I'd C2 it.

I think we've all said our piece, and well I might add on both sides of the argument.

Talk about topics that split the forum! lol

 

[Badged01]

Do people really believe that the IET would produce a set of Regulations, that would place themselves in a position where they could face litigation for allowing unsafe installations?

The above is very true, but my slant is probably different to what the poster meant!

The IET will update the regs to cover their 'butts' and currently they will stand behind the disconnection times in the BGB as being 'safe' as far as is reasonable practicable to understand at present. Then presumably the 'new, disconnection times in the BYB when issued!!. (Otherwise why change the times?) They legally can't make any location be upgraded to the latest edition of the regs (which are recommendations not enforceable law), so cant be prosecuted if 'old' installations don't meet the current 'safe' requirements. Infact they don't know if the old installations don't actually meet the latest disconnection times as they have no visibility! (I'm not in the mind of the IET so don't know their thinking behind changes to the times but my own industrial work experience of upgrading processes, procedures and instructions/guidance has always been to make things better/safer not the other way around!!)

I guess their get out clause would be that "we discharge our duties by stating what is 'recommended' as being safe in the current regs and rely upon 'competent' inspectors conducting EICR's of old installations (when required by owners, not legally enforceable) to intepret our regs to ensure the disconnection time is safe and advise the owner accordingly". i.e. we've passed the buck down to the inspector to check if its safe when inspecting to our latest regs!

But ask yourself the question, should little Johnny get electrocuted and you have signed the EICR saying the 16th edn disconnection times are C3 and the installation is satisfactory for continued use, even when there is a more stringent disconnection time to be applied in the current regulations which your are conducting your EICR to and you know about - you're the competent inspector?. When the defence call the 'expert' witness from the IET, what disconnection time do you think he is going to stand behind as the recommended safe time? I dont think he will be saying any time from the 15th/16th edn or the IET could then be liable to litigation themselves in approving/recommending the 'unsafe' disconnection time which killed little Johnny! And if you know anything about big organisations, one thing they are very good at is covering their own butts and happily sacrificing the worker (inspector) if it suites their ends.

If nothing else cover your own butt and go "C2" -- the customer doesn't have to upgrade if he doesn't want to, you can't make him (same as the IET) but atleast you have advised him about the potential risk! If they want to argue further about the disconnection time being safe or not they can take that up with the IET, whose guidance on the subject you have followed

I'ver waffled on far too much and enough has been said on the post for the layman to choose his own position. So like the previous posts, this is my last post before agreeing to disagree with everyones interpretation of C3 and disgracefully bowing out with old age. The thread could go on and on and round and round otherwise ......

 

[Engineer54]

I'd examine the supply characteristics, in detail lol. If TT then 0.2s maximum disconnection time for general circuits where an RCD is used for fault protection applies. If that maximum permitted disconnection time cannot be met, I'd C2 it.

I think we've all said our piece, and well I might add on both sides of the argument.

Talk about topics that split the forum! lol

Tut, tut, tut, ...what i'm saying is, if the circuit or circuits are protected with an RCD device, it wouldn't matter a jot if it was 0.2 or 0.4 sec disconnection times!! You can examine the supply characteristics etc all you like, so long as the RCD device passes the standard tests, it's a good'un!!

Now if you want a topic that we DO disagree on. Check out this thread!! lol!!

http://www.electriciansforums.co.uk...rum/88682-eal-test-inspection.html#post919002

 

[D Skelton]

Tut, tut, tut, ...what i'm saying is, if the circuit or circuits are protected with an RCD device, it wouldn't matter a jot if it was 0.2 or 0.4 sec disconnection times!! You can examine the supply characteristics etc all you like, so long as the RCD device passes the standard tests, it's a good'un!!

Now if you want a topic that we DO disagree on. Check out this thread!! lol!!

http://www.electriciansforums.co.uk...rum/88682-eal-test-inspection.html#post919002

It would matter if the RCD in question wouldn't disconnect in the required time

 

[telectrix]

never seen a RCD that didn't meet the 0.2 secs @ x1. always get < 50mSec.( unless, of course it's faulty).

 

[spark 68]

Badged mate you have a 0.2 disconnection time as your reason for a C2, fair enough, but you are still wrong.

if you have a look in the current regs (BGB) at reg 411.3.2.2 under the table in that reg it points you to 411.3.1.2 and tells you that if protective equipotential bonding as per 411.3.1.2 is present (incoming water, gas etc.), then TN values (0.4s) for your disconnection time may be used for a TT system.

This is in the current regs, not the 16th, lol

In a fully compliant 16th ed install, 411.3.1.2 in the 17th, would be met anyway, and don't forget S/Os (and showers) would be covered by a 30mA device in the 16th too which would disconnect in 40ms @ 5Idn

Edit: OK the above applies to where an OCPD is used for disconnection, but further reading relating to RCDs as a means of fault protection in 411.5.3 states the disconnection time shall be either 411.3.2.2 or 411.3.2.4 and RA X Idn <=50

it then says the requirements of this regulation are met if the ELI of the circuits protected by RCD meet the values in table 41.5 in the BGB
, which they would do even in the 16th

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Well thank you Spin for that rather patronising lesson on how to conduct myself whilst inspecting and testing an electrical installation. It might help you to know that I'm well aware how to code something that is potentially dangerous!

I couldn't care less what previous regulations state, I am inspecting the installation to current regulations and a major part of that procedure means determining whether or not the installation complies with the requirements for ADS. An overcurrent protective device not disconnecting a circuit in the required time under fault conditions IS potentially dangerous, and saying so is not tantamount to fraud, nor does it indicate a lack of knowledge?!?!?!? What a load of twoddle!

To use the quote from the current regs; "This does not necessarily mean that they unsafe for continued use or require upgrading". There you have it fella. This means that it may not in all cases be unsafe, but in some cases it could be. That is what the use of the words 'does not necessarily' indicate. If the IET would never say that earlier editions of the regulations were 'unsafe', or at least 'less safe' than the current, there'd be no need for them to keep changing them would there?!




I have read it, and nowhere does it say that in all cases a bare live conductor must be insulated whether it is within reach or not.


Finally, I couldn't help but pick out this little gem! Talk about contradiction!

First Ed of the wiring Regs (1882): section 15: "All wires used for indoor purposes should be efficiently insulated. "

http://www.electriciansforums.co.uk...m/87573-first-edition-wiring-regs-1882-a.html

 

[Engineer54]

It would matter if the RCD in question wouldn't disconnect in the required time

So what do you think i meant by this statement then??

so long as the RCD device passes the standard tests