Conundrum

[securespark]

Protection from what? Ze Germans?

Or Zs Germans....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What would that achieve?

Compliance?

I know 522.6.6 & 7 do not specifically refer to protection of live conductors, but that is their intention.

So you think we should ignore some regulations because we don't think they mean it?

 

[sparkyspike]

Or Zs Germans....

I was wondering who was going to say it!

 

[sparkyspike]

having proved there is an error the whole section maybe should be ignored until the obvious faults have been removed from the section.

Unfortunately, in legal terms, it is the wording which needs to be adhered to, rather than the intent. But in common sense terms, until the section is clarified, the intent of the section will probably be more important to follow. Not the best of situations really.

 

[NotHimAgain]

having proved there is an error the whole section maybe should be ignored until the obvious faults have been removed from the section.

Unfortunately, in legal terms, it is the wording which needs to be adhered to, rather than the intent. But in common sense terms, until the section is clarified, the intent of the section will probably be more important to follow. Not the best of situations really.

Since when was BS 7671 a legal document - read the disclaimer(s) on page 2 - BAS will explain them to you .

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Maybe he means that when you sign an EIC you are not signing to say that you "hereby CERTIFY that the said work for which I have been responsible is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with some of the requirements of BS 7671:2008 amended to .......... (date) with other stated requirements ignored because I don't believe they reflect the intent of the authors."

 

[NotHimAgain]

Including the requirement on page 2 to rely on my own skill and judgement .

 

[sparkyspike]

Maybe he means that when you sign an EIC you are not signing to say that you "hereby CERTIFY that the said work for which I have been responsible is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with some of the requirements of BS 7671:2008 amended to .......... (date) with other stated requirements ignored because I don't believe they reflect the intent of the authors."

Pretty much.

I was trying to emphasize that you should not choose to ignore the intent of sections in BS7671 just because they are written badly. Common sense and interpretation all go into the mix. The clearer the 18th edition is written, the less mis-interpretation will be possible.

 

[NotHimAgain]

Its no good offering the Nuremberg defence. Similarly you cannot claim that any instructions given that would lead to a defective installation should be followed. There is case law involving architects instructions to builders, but I can't remember the details. The law of Tort - negligence, will probably apply

This does not mean that you can ignore parts of BS 7671 to suite your own requirements, but you must ignore any instructions that, due to errors or omissions, would lead to a defective installation.

It is hardly surprising that BS 7671, along with most other British Standards, contains disclaimers.

522.6 does not place any limitations on circuit parameters - this is clearly ridiculous when it is applied to RCD protection (i.e. on SELV, DC, regardless of voltage etc, etc). There is no conundrum - you simply have to apply your own skill and judgement.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was trying to emphasize that you should not choose to ignore the intent of sections in BS7671 just because they are written badly.

Mmm.

But should you choose to ignore the words, and the stated requirements, because you think you know that the intent is not what's written?

My OP was meant light-heartedly - no matter what the regulations say, and how slavishly you want to follow them, you simply cannot RCD protect a bonding cable, or a SELV one, or a phone/data/AV one etc...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This does not mean that you can ignore parts of BS 7671 to suite your own requirements, but you must ignore any instructions that, due to errors or omissions, would lead to a defective installation.

Mmm.

But to what extent can you use your own skill and judgement to decide that the intent of the regulations is what matches your own requirements?

 

[NotHimAgain]

This does not mean that you can ignore parts of BS 7671 to suite your own requirements, but you must ignore any instructions that, due to errors or omissions, would lead to a defective installation.

Mmm.

But to what extent can you use your own skill and judgement to decide that the intent of the regulations is what matches your own requirements?

I think you can only use it where there is a clear error or omission - so I would argue that you can use it for 522.6 - but (I can't believe I am mentioning this ) you would have a lot more trouble if it was used in something like our recent debate on High Integrity Earthing .

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I can't believe I'm responding to it either, but the errors re high-integrity earthing are in the guidance pubs, not the regs, but I'll say no more in this topic. If anyone wants to try to restart a repeat of the previous exchanges then the old topics on it are still open, I believe...

But to get back on track, there are areas where interpretation, i.e. using your skill and judgement, are unavoidable when the regulations are affected by parameters that they don't define, and in these areas it's inevitable that people will decide to do what best suits their own requirements....

 

[NotHimAgain]

But to get back on track, there are areas where interpretation, i.e. using your skill and judgement, are unavoidable when the regulations are affected by parameters that they don't define, and in these areas it's inevitable that people will decide to do what best suits their own requirements....

If you were trying to defend a negligence case - I think you would have to be able to show that the choices you made were based on 'good practice' rather than your own convenience.