Guys, thanks for an interesting set of posts (and even better, which haven't descended into a pi**ing contest). I find these sorts of discussions really good in helping me decide what I would do in future similar circumstances.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Discuss TT eicr code? in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification area at ElectriciansForums.net
Guys, thanks for an interesting set of posts (and even better, which haven't descended into a pi**ing contest). I find these sorts of discussions really good in helping me decide what I would do in future similar circumstances.
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!
One of the problems I have discovered with the 2391 qualification, is that Electricians take and pass the exam, then believe that they can go out and conduct PIRs. They further believe that they do not have to take into consideration earlier editions of the Regulations.
This unfortunately results in a number of installations being unnecessarily condemned, and in many cases house holders paying out for unecessecary work.
Sorry, but you are obviously misconstruing the quote from the Regulations, I suggest you re-read it.
What it is saying, is that an installation, should not be considered as being unsafe, just because the Regulations have been changed since the installation was constructed. However the installation may well be unsafe for a host of other reasons, such as : deterioration, damage, non-compliant alterations/additions
Sorry, didn't mean to be patronising, just wanted to use the correct terminology rather than the mish mosh that had been used so far in the thread.
One of the problems I have discovered with the 2391 qualification, is that Electricians take and pass the exam, then believe that they can go out and conduct PIRs. They further believe that they do not have to take into consideration earlier editions of the Regulations.
This unfortunately results in a number of installations being unnecessarily condemned, and in many cases house holders paying out for unecessecary work.
Sorry, but you are obviously misconstruing the quote from the Regulations, I suggest you re-read it.
What it is saying, is that an installation, should not be considered as being unsafe, just because the Regulations have been changed since the installation was constructed. However the installation may well be unsafe for a host of other reasons, such as : deterioration, damage, non-compliant alterations/additions, etc.
There are many reasons why the Regulations are up-dated.
New technologies, cheaper products, public perceptions regarding safety, and in at least one instance, so as to prevent inspectors condemning installations unnecessarily.
A 'bare' conductor is un-insulated.
Is it a contradiction?
The inspection of an existing installation is referred to as a Periodic Inspection. Conducting such an inspection is known as conducting a PIR. Perhaps some time in the future, it will become known as conducting an EICR, but I doubt it. Then again people refer to PAT testing, and MOT tests, so who knows?
At the end of the day, if you want to go around condemning installations just because they are constructed to earlier editions of the Regulations, good luck to you. I hope it brings in lots of work.
Just don't be too surprised when someone calls you out on it.
Just for information the specification for a time delayed RCD to BSEN61008 has maximum trip time of 150ms if there is a significant fault current (=>5Idn) so it would meet the disconnection times for a 0.2s (200ms) circuit on a "fault of negligible impedance".An s-type won't be less than 200ms as a non-adjustable type-s is built with this figure as a time delay. A type-s can never be used to provide fault protection on a circuit where 0.2s is the maximum permissible disconnection time.
Just for information the specification for a time delayed RCD to BSEN61008 has maximum trip time of 150ms if there is a significant fault current (=>5Idn) so it would meet the disconnection times for a 0.2s (200ms) circuit on a "fault of negligible impedance".
So does all this imply that previous editions of BS7671 and beyond, weren't fit for purpose, and that installations that fully met with those previous editions, have somehow now become in some eye's ...bloody dangerous???
I doubt if you'll ever get the ITE to agree, or go along with those comments!! I wonder what they will say about the regulations you are all working to now in the future?? Do any of you think, that the installations you are installing now, are or could be called actually called dangerous in the future??
Not covered by BS7671
If anyone is going to base whether an installation is safe according to the regs at the time of the installation, they would need to know the date of installation, how often are we blessed with this information? Once upon a time fused neutrals were considered a good idea. Its really up to the individual at the time to make an educated assessment of coding required, many amendments are for the better, some have taken a backward step IMHO. I like to base my decisions on worse case scenarios, can't go far wrong then.
If you have a fault where the resistance is between 7660Ω and 2300Ω then the RCD would (probably) not trip in <0.2 s however it is not required to according to BS7671. This would be a similar situation to MCBs that will not trip in the required time if the fault current is low; similarly how do you know and MCB will trip in the time stated, you do not know, you are relying on the manufacturers making them to standard. It is not (in standard situations) safe to test this compliance.Conventionally, but it has always been my understanding that they are not excluded from BS7671, fault current is fault current at the end of the day. Happy to be corrected and told otherwise however. One thing though, how would you ascertain that the RCD would indeed trip within 150ms when we don't carry out 5x tests on anything higher than 30mA RCDs?
Reply to TT eicr code? in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification area at ElectriciansForums.net