Who does just a Zs when carrying out a periodic on a lighting circuit

[Deleted member 26818]

Whilst I don't agree with everything within GN3, and I accept that it is just guidance based on someones opinion.
As far as I'm aware GN3 suggests using an EFLI test as being the most practical method of proving continuity.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Whilst I don't agree with everything within GN3, and I accept that it is just guidance based on someones opinion.
As far as I'm aware GN3 suggests using an EFLI test as being the most practical method of proving continuity.

It does indeed.

 

[nickblake]

LOL sorry guys who was it on here who told me off for doing live tests and that an nic bod said you were not allowed to to live tests any more due to health and safety , now that one will throw a spanner in the works lol

 

[Deleted member 9648]

LOL sorry guys who was it on here who told me off for doing live tests and that an nic bod said you were not allowed to to live tests any more due to health and safety , now that one will throw a spanner in the works lol

Yep....I've had that one thrown my way by the NIC......ignored it! :cheesy:

 

[Deleted member 26818]

LOL sorry guys who was it on here who told me off for doing live tests and that an nic bod said you were not allowed to to live tests any more due to health and safety , now that one will throw a spanner in the works lol

No idea?

 

[nickblake]

Im all for health and safety but come on where has the common sence gone ,lets all run out and do a dead Ze test , oh yes by enquiry , how are they going to know what it is, bad enough trying to get them to reseal a meter !!!

 

[Voltimax]

I've just been testing a hotel. Not possible to shut whole DB's down so I use the R2 wander lead method to make sure lights, accessories etc have an earth connection. It hasn't been possible to connect the wander lead directly to the earth point at all the DB's due to being a tripping hazard and too many doors to take it through. so I connect to earth on the nearest socket using a breakout box. Obviously I ensure there is an earth at this point, then I go round with the wander lead and make sure I get a reading, then carry out my Zs testing later. I wasn't happy doing it this way since the last 3 PIR's carried out at this hotel had R1+R2 readings recorded in the schedules of test results, however, doing it this way I found over 10 metal light fittings that had no earth connection. Obviously I felt much better about my chosen option and I had agreed it with the client beforehand and duly noted it down in the limitations box. Obviously the previous jokers just took one R1+R2 and Zs reading per circuit.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Im all for health and safety but come on where has the common sence gone ,lets all run out and do a dead Ze test , oh yes by enquiry , how are they going to know what it is, bad enough trying to get them to reseal a meter !!!

I've done live testing (including Zs) on every NICEIC and ECA technical assessment that I've ever done (a few) all without any comment from the assessor.

The NICEIC official line stems from the EAWR 1989 and the lack of distinguishing between 'working live' and testing.

 

[SirKit Breaker]

It is acceptable to just put a tick in the box for R1+R2 or R2 on a PIR, but not on an EIC. But if you are measuring or confirming then you may as well put down the recorded result anyway, this will give you something to work with next time around.

Cheers.........Howard

 

[IQ Electrical]

It is acceptable to just put a tick in the box for R1+R2 or R2 on a PIR, but not on an EIC. But if you are measuring or confirming then you may as well put down the recorded result anyway, this will give you something to work with next time around.

Cheers.........Howard

I agree that you would record the value if measuring but there is actually no requirement in 612.2.1 to record any value of resistance during a continuity test on initial verification.

If you have a continuity 'buzzer' operating at a voltage of between 4 and 24 V dc or ac with a short circuit current of not less than 200mA then you've complied with every part of 612.2.1 for the continuity of protective conductors test.

 

[MarkieSparkie]

I've done live testing (including Zs) on every NICEIC and ECA technical assessment that I've ever done (a few) all without any comment from the assessor.

The NICEIC official line stems from the EAWR 1989 and the lack of distinguishing between 'working live' and testing.

IQ, Live testing is considered working live by the HSE in HSR25.
EAWR 1989, Regulation 14, is absolute (no deviation allowed, and work is defined as any work activity not just electrical), therefore ALL three of the following conditions, in ALL circumstances must be met before a person may work live.
"Regulation 14, Work on or near live conductors.
No person shall be engaged in any work activity on or near any live conductor (other than one suitably covered with insulating material so as to prevent danger) that danger may arise unless:
a) it is unreasonable in ALL the circumstances for it to be made dead; and
b) it is reasonable in ALL the circumstances for him to be at work on or near it while it is live; and
c) suitable precautions (including where necessary the provision of suitable protective equipment) are taken to prevent injury.

HSR25 Memorandum of guidance on the EARW 1989, Regulation 14 guidance paragraph 208, states "Live work includes live testing ... ".

 

[Deleted member 9648]

IQ, Live testing is considered working live by the HSE in HSR25.
EAWR 1989, Regulation 14, is absolute (no deviation allowed, and work is defined as any work activity not just electrical), therefore ALL three of the following conditions, in ALL circumstances must be met before a person may work live.
"Regulation 14, Work on or near live conductors.
No person shall be engaged in any work activity on or near any live conductor (other than one suitably covered with insulating material so as to prevent danger) that danger may arise unless:
a) it is unreasonable in ALL the circumstances for it to be made dead; and.....It could be argued that a Zs test is required and cant be completed dead
b) it is reasonable in ALL the circumstances for him to be at work on or near it while it is live; and..It is if he is competant to be in the proximity.
c) suitable precautions (including where necessary the provision of suitable protective equipment) are taken to prevent injury....Using an approved ELI tester in the correct manner is surely taking suitable precautions using approved safety equipment

HSR25 Memorandum of guidance on the EARW 1989, Regulation 14 guidance paragraph 208, states "Live work includes live testing ... ".

That would be my interpretation of the above guidance.....other interpretations might be devised. The problem is,with the present litigation culture,as soon as something goes wrong the sort of ambiguous guidance above will always be interpreted as live testing should not have been carried out, in order to dump on the individual concerned from a great height.

 

[TPES]

There's alot of sparks that test properly doing ALL tests correctly getting all value readings, yet there so many out there that I'm up against that do PIR's for £99, some of my competition must be bull s*****s, your day is easily took up doing PIRs correctly, or there just prepared to work for nothing.

 

[Geoffsd]

"Regulation 14, Work on or near live conductors.
No person shall be engaged in any work activity on or near any live conductor (other than one suitably covered with insulating material so as to prevent danger) that danger may arise unless:

a) it is unreasonable in ALL the circumstances for it to be made dead; and

HSR25 Memorandum of guidance on the EARW 1989, Regulation 14 guidance paragraph 208, states "Live work includes live testing ... ".

Does that mean we HAVE to pull cut-out when working in CU - let alone replacing it.

Oh! Wash my mouth out with WD40.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Does that mean we HAVE to pull cut-out when working in CU - let alone replacing it.

Oh! Wash my mouth out with WD40.

Now that is a question, and the answer is probably why no one ever gets in trouble for doing such.
From a legal standpoint, can it be illegal to carry out an action that safeguards a person's safety?