codes

[holmslaw]

..

 

[martinxxxxxx]

So we have a damaged accessory with live terminals accessible - but we don't know what code to give it?

 

[JohnW2]

So we have a damaged accessory with live terminals accessible - but we don't know what code to give it?

Seemingly - but as I understand, the only reason it's even being discussed is because it's 2.5 metres up in the air. I have to say that gives me little reassurance; if it were 10 metres, I might think differently.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[martinxxxxxx]

Defective accessories with exposed live conductors code 1, height has nothing to do with it, does it?

 

[RF Lighting]

Is it posing an immediate risk to the occupants of the premisis?

 

[JohnW2]

Defective accessories with exposed live conductors code 1, height has nothing to do with it, does it?

Some people clearly think so. I suppose it comes down to the definition of 'exposed' - if access is sufficiently difficult, it may not be regarded as meaningfully 'exposed' - after all, in the context of electricity distribution and electrified train lines, we accept 'exposed' bare conductors carrying very high voltages because they are sufficiently 'high up'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[martinxxxxxx]

GN3 is the one we are supposed to follow and I don't see a get out clause for it in there. But i have been wrong before and am ready to be educated once again

 

[RF Lighting]

I have to agree with holmslaw on this one. You're waffling about something you know nothing about.

 

[westie101]

I would suggest in this case it is correct to report the defect at it's most severe!

It is then up to the building occupier to carry out a suitable Risk Assessment to decide how to proceed and how to control the risk

 

[JohnW2]

I have to agree with holmslaw on this one. You're waffling about something you know nothing about.

Common sense and intuition tells me that any sort of exposed live parts deserves the most severe of codes (i.e. Code 1). However, since you've been responding to my posts with semi-rhetorical questions and riddles, without at any stage actually indicating your answers, I presumed (seemingly incorrectly?) that you were questioning that 'obvious' view - and therefore have been trying to find ways of rationalising that. It generally takes at least two to tango (or waffle)

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

I can't say for certain how I would code it without seeing it in the actual situation, but in my mind I find it highly unlikely that it could warrant a code 1.

 

[JohnW2]

I can't say for certain how I would code it without seeing it in the actual situation, but in my mind I find it highly unlikely that it could warrant a code 1.

Now I'm more confused That's what I thought you were implying, and the reason I was 'thinking aloud' about ways in which sch a view could be rationalised!

Kind Regards, John.