periodics

[kfelec]

rf i understand were you are coming from but i think my question was reasonable the other lads comments straight forward. (not making people look small)

 

[1john]

I gotta agree with RF here, I seen a periodic once stating that the extractor fan in the kitchen wasn't capable of removing enough cubic meters of air?? WTF!!

Writing the reg next to the fault / non compliance should be made statutory.

 

[dingbat]

There are so so so many people out there carrying out periodic inspection reports who simply do not have a clue what they are doing.

I absolutely agree.

And it's not just the one-man-blunderers either. Some large firms, offering services to industrial clients are just as bad. When periodic inspections are sold over the phone by non-technical sales people and those services are purchased by non-technical buyers - and this does happen - what level of service do you think is provided.

We often get candidates for the 2391-10 course who declare themselves to be expert testers on Day One, because that's what they do all day every day, only to defer the practical assessment when they realise they have no idea.

Some firms employ unqualified personnel and 'train them up', which would be fine if they did it correctly. I recently had one attendee who explained how they carry out a periodic inspection and test on an industrial/commercial lighting circuit:
1. External visual examination, correct operation of switches etc.
2. Find a convenient light switch, open up while live and carry out a direct Zs measurement. Record that as the Zs for the circuit.
3. (This made me laugh) Take a wander-lead, R2, measurement (while still all live) at the same point.
4. Sign off.

When I queried the sequence and the validity of this regime he told me that this is exactly what they did on every job and so far they had had no problems. I explained that this could probably be considered as fraud. He admitted he didn't understand what either of the measurements proved or whether or not the readings were acceptable.

(Oh and, apropos another thread or two, in five years of assessing 2391 practicals, only a handful of candidates have ever carried out a ring final test correctly - most of them test is exactly as if it was another radial circuit.)

 

[dingbat]

rf i understand were you are coming from but i think my question was reasonable the other lads comments straight forward. (not making people look small)

KF, I think Rob is one of the more polite posters on here (unlike me, for example) and doesn't go for the jugular.

Some people get upset when the 'C' word is used. You shouldn't take this personally, competence is what the law requires; specifically Regulation 16 of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.

Look it up free of charge:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsr25.htm

 

[ricicle]

If you are asking basic questions then you are not fully competant, if you are not fully competant you should not be carrying out PIRs - let alone charging for your services !

 

[Adam_151]

Question for dingbat....

I've noticed on a few occasions, you seem to be against direct measurement of Zs on final circuits? is this just a personal bias? or are there moves on the college scene to try and do away with it in the mainstream in the name of H+S for students?

 

[dingbat]

Question for dingbat....

I've noticed on a few occasions, you seem to be against direct measurement of Zs on final circuits? is this just a personal bias? or are there moves on the college scene to try and do away with it in the mainstream in the name of H+S for students?

I'm not against it. Far from it.

For some years now, the direct measurement of Zs has been discouraged for initial verification, simply because it is not necessary and thus would contravene regulation 14 of the EAWR 1989. However, for a periodic inspection of an installation it may be the most effective way of determining the only test requirement for periodic inspection as laid down in BS 7671.

What I most strenuously discourage, though, is the unthinking live working carried out by persons insufficiently competent to understand the implications of their actions.

 

[Adam_151]

[quote="Adam_151";]
I'm not against it. Far from it.
[/quote]
Glad to hear that you hadn't just decided to take excecption to it

For some years now, the direct measurement of Zs has been discouraged for initial verification, simply because it is not necessary and thus would contravene regulation 14 of the EAWR 1989.

When I was at college I was taught it was the prefered method to obtain the Zs, and that if you calculated it that it should be noted on the certification along with the justification, although I can see the reasoning behind what you suggest, even more now that we are working under the 17th and have to fit an RCD to anything that stays still long enough , my loop tester does a reasonably accurate 2 lead loop test on non trip mode most of the time (but the results are still not perfect!), but trying to do it with some of the other testers out there can be a nightmare!

However, for a periodic inspection of an installation it may be the most effective way of determining the only test requirement for periodic inspection as laid down in BS 7671.

Spot on, the point I was going to make was that for a anything bigger than a simple domestic property, it would be somewhat difficult to do if one was to declare direct measurement on a live circuit as forbiddem!

What I most strenuously discourage, though, is the unthinking live working carried out by persons insufficiently competent to understand the implications of their actions.

I'm sure folk who set out to obtain a loop reading are aware of the potential risks in doing so and excercise suitable care (or is your class full of frazzled sparkys and ones with arc-eye ). At least when you're loop testing you are expecting it to be live!, its the times when one expects something to be dead because they have just proved it as such, and it later becomes live through a borrowed neutral that people sometimes forget to careful off