Unsure on pir

[Bright.Spark]

Hi I'm currently doing a pir on a big house and am confused by the socket arrangement. They have a room wired on a radial but a socket has been added which is not included in the radial. Eg one socket has three cables is this acceptable? Secondly what's the verdict on fly leads to the back boxes? The board is a wylex dual rcd so are fly leads required? Thirdly should the smoke alarms be on a dedicated circuit? There currently on the upstairs lights? What code would people give these problems if any?

 

[Des 56]

Probably none at all
The fly lead may be needed if one of the lugs is not the fixed type


I am editing this because my second paragraph explains it like a load of crap
Fly lead needed if, --- best to read Durhams wording

 

[DurhamSparky]

fly leads need not be used if the metal back box has 1x fixed lug

smoke alarms are fine

radial can be of any config you want

i would code none of the above!!!

 

[telectrix]

agree with above, but i think it's good practice to fit fly leads, but as long as the back box has 1 fixed lug, not necessary. no codes, no deviations.

 

[Sintra]

Agree with the 1 fixed lug on back box providing the wiring system has a cpc cable incorporated then no fly lead required.

 

[IQ Electrical]

I'll stick my neck out here and say that if you're carrying out PIR's in people's homes then you really should know the answers to these questions.If you are 'confused' by 3 cables at a socket outlet on a radial circuit then you really need to brush up on BS 7671:2008 before carrying out more inspections.

 

[Sparky Ninja]

I'll stick my neck out here and say that if you're carrying out PIR's in people's homes then you really should know the answers to these questions.If you are 'confused' by 3 cables at a socket outlet on a radial circuit then you really need to brush up on BS 7671:2008 before carrying out more inspections.

I'd have to agree with you there IQ.

 

[telectrix]

i imagine the op is fairly new to testing, and it's just maybe something he's not come across before. it's a similar query to a recent post whereby the op was asking if it was OK to spur a socket off a RFC at the CU. also , it's surprising how many experienced sparks still believe that fly leads to back boxes are obligatory, and how many say it's essential to wire smokes on a dedicated circiut.

 

[IQ Electrical]

i imagine the op is fairly new to testing, and it's just maybe something he's not come across before. it's a similar query to a recent post whereby the op was asking if it was OK to spur a socket off a RFC at the CU. also , it's surprising how many experienced sparks still believe that fly leads to back boxes are obligatory, and how many say it's essential to wire smokes on a dedicated circiut.

I'm all for learning and helping here but you're supposed to be competent before taking on Periodic Inspections!I see the reports that guys 'new to testing' produce on a daily basis and it's frightening and annoying, they're telling clients that installations are 'satisfactory' while missing latent defects!I'm not saying the op sits in this category but those questions don't inspire confidence.We all bang on about competency and poor PIR's for a good reason.

 

[telectrix]

agreed. you should have seen the one i saw last week. posted a thread on it. diabolical is too tame a word.

 

[Des 56]

agreed. you should have seen the one i saw last week. posted a thread on it. diabolical is too tame a word.

There is a thread running about visual inspections endorsed by the Nic
These are being issued and mis-used as the latest con trick in the inspection and test industry with the backing of the schemes
We know as electricians what is an acceptable Pir and what it should entail regard the person doing the work

The industry as a whole accepts most if not all of our veiws
The problem is percieved importance of that Pir
It is a requirement only if the recipient sees it as a way of demonstrating duty of care, or is obliged to do so by others,insurance etc

Those who require the Pir will almost unanimously see the cheapest accepted option as the best,whatever that may be
The powers that be whether government or industry know the score, but there is no gain for them in changing the present structure

They may pay lip service to improvement or enforcement but it aint gonna happen soon,if ever
Its a system that encourages a free for all and likely suits society as it is

 

[SirKit Breaker]

We all have our own thoughts and opinions on how to carry out a PIR, and the same opinions for the various codings etc.

A PIR is a very involved and thorough assessment of an Electrical Installation. In my opinion it has to be carried out properly, and can only be done so by an Inspector with the relevant expertise. My thought is that there should be a standard across the board which we all have to follow and assess to, in the same way as an MOT tester tests our vehicles. What i am trying to get at is that just because we are Electricians, doesn't mean we are competent to test and inspect. I know we have the C&G 2391 which could be argued as the standard required to prove competency in carrying out PIR's. But you only have to look at posts on the subject from those including myself who hold the 2391 to see just how varied and different those opinions are.

We carry out PIR's for various reasons, and those reasons determine the codings we use for defects we find in our opinion.

If we only had one purpose for carrying out a PIR then surely it would make things simpler for all concerned, and less likely to come down to opinion. In my opinion we should ONLY carry out a PIR to "Assess the installation to current standards". This is not to say that installations that meet earlier versions of the regs are dangerous, and we must be able to say so. After all we have Code 4 for this purpose, and we must emphasise to clients that the notes in code 4 does not mean it needs to have loads of money thrown at it and unnecessary work carried out.

Discuss..............Howard

 

[telectrix]

exactly, howard. my post in the arms " CU change-awkward " tells of a pir i saw last week. several code 4's entered as code 1's. pir trhe client had was a photocopy. arrrrgh.

and it was niceic, with no IR readings whatsoever.