C3s putting you in harms way ??

[Pretty Mouth]

I'm with @Soi disant on this one.

BS7671 tells us how a new installation should be, so using it we can identify non compliances. What it doesn't generally do is tell us why it should be that way, or the level of danger (if any) that a particular non compliance might lead to. Yes, engineering judgement and experience are both needed for periodic I&T, but we need industry guidance too. To calibrate our judgements against, and for consistent coding throughout the industry. And, should we find ourselves in trouble, to at least go a little way toward backing up our decisions.

 

[UNG]

Please show where I've even suggested that I am.

You keep promoting these gospels according to the CPS's in such a way that you must be getting commission on sales

That's all true, but you were arguing against the use of best practice guides issued by officially recognised organisers of competent person schemes, saying that non-conformances should only be judged against the wiring regs, so it seemed reasonable to consider the fact that those contain effectively nothing in the way of guidance on codings.

Perhaps if you'd said at the outset that the substitute for scheme BPGs is proper qualifications, the appropriate skill set and experience, not BS 7671?

You have guides that are produced by 2 organisations which over recent years it has become quite clear that they are vying with each other to be top dog it is a pity they don't put as much effort into raising the standards of training from the gutter level they have pushed the industry into

The wiring regs lay down the standards an installation must meet to be compliant supported by the onsite guide how difficult is it to make that decision when it comes to coding a non-compliances that you have to pick up yet another publication where the authors / contributors can't all agree when you speak to some of them on the correct coding of some issues
With a book that lists a generic faults and coding solutions what do you do when none of the generic faults matches what you have found if the NAPIT / NICEIC publications differ where do you go for the casting vote

However, you are ignoring the fact that virtually every industry and profession has defined best practices, and the fact that as soon as it's made legally mandatory for non-conformances to be rectified, and made a criminal offence to fail to do so, we really should strive to have a system where non-conformances are coded consistently, day in, day out, from one end of the country to another.

While industries have best practices the electrical industry mandarins have chosen to totally ignore a number of best practices within the industry to the extent we now have a shambles of an industry driven by money and petty bickering and not by standards

If you think about it, BS 7671 is nothing but a large best practice guide for how electrical installations shall be designed and constructed, and I don't see people saying that we shouldn't have it, that we should just rely on people who carry out design and construction etc having proper qualifications, the appropriate skill set and experience.

I don't need to think about but may be you do if you think BS7671 is a best practice guide , BS7671 is an industry ACOP's currently supported by a set of guidance notes that has been around in many different editions for many years

There is much that is unsatisfactory about the present situation, such as different BPGs giving different guidance, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea of having them

The thing wrong with these publications they prop up poor training, a poor skill set and a lack of experience and elevate people beyond their real level of competence

Why have the IET not published any guidance on coding or do they consider it is already out there in the publications they have produced

 

[David Anthony]

• https://forum.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/profile/2335-algy/

Posted April 1, 2013
"The Ferrari F1 team fired their entire pit crew yesterday."This announcement followed Ferrari's decision to take advantage of the British government's 'Work for your Dole' scheme and employ some Scouse youngsters.

The decision to hire them was brought about by a recent TV documentary on how unemployed youths from Toxteth, Liverpool were able to remove a set of wheels in less than 6 seconds without specialist equipment, whereas Ferrari's existing crew could only manage it in 8 seconds with millions of pounds worth of high tech gear.

It was thought to be an excellent, bold move by the Ferrari management team, as most races are won and lost in the pits, thus giving Ferrari a massive advantage over every other team.

The scouse lads were brilliant at their home practice sessions, however, Ferrari got more than they bargained for! At the crew's first real race practice session at Le Mans, not only was the scouse pit crew able to change all four wheels in under 6 seconds but, within 12 seconds, they had re-sprayed, re-badged and sold the car to the McLaren team for 8 cases of Stella, a bag of ganja and some photos of Lewis Hamilton's bird in the shower.

Brilliant Metaphor! Penalty for cheap and cheerful electrical bodge work

 

[loz2754]

I try to take the balanced view, that if you NEED a book to decide for you what code to record, then you shouldn't be allowed to do inspection and testing, as you obviously don't yet have the necessary experience. On the other hand, it's occasionally helpful to look at such a book if there's a particularly unusual situation, as no one person has come across EVERY possible scenario.

In my opinion of course.

 

[telectrix]

form someof the crap EICRs I've seen, the guidance on issueing a satisfactory or an unsatisfactory report is all down to whether @er indoors wants a new pair of shoes. C1 for Gucci, C2 for Dior. ( C3 for market trainers).

 

[old man sparky]

Did you actually read ALL of my post and did you actually digest any of it before you responded.

Why are you so insistent that the gospels according to NAPIT and / or the NICEIC is law' they are full of generic circumstances with generic codings that in the case of codebreakers even the contributors can agree on

There is no substitute for proper qualifications, the appropriate skill set and EXPERIENCE when it comes down to making the decision at the coalface for what coding is needed for a non compliance with BS7671. If you are not able to do that then IMO you should not be doing EICR's, back when I did the 2391 the book you needed was the current BS7671 to make that informed decision not a load of dodgy money making publications

To be honest the biggest non compliance currently is the lack of proper training or the task in hand which should be coded as a C1+++

Completely agree with all you say I really do. The problem is we are getting to a point where good electricians will be having sleepless nights because there being held accountable by an aggressive legal team who can pick holes in all those grey areas we mention on forums like this. What grey areas I hear you ask. Anything that results in long debates of code 2, code 3, regulation this, regulation that, mandatory, non mandatory. A good legal team will be laughing its socks off. We are electricians not lawyers and any sparky who feels smug and cosy hiding behind a book is going to be in for a hell of a shock. (Excuse the pun)
If we find ourselves having differing opinions, and providing different interpretations on this forum. We need to start looking at the bigger picture and realising that sooner or later WE are the ones that are being put in harms way. Please don't think that any level of experience and qualifications will make you bullet proof in this tsunami of EICR's that are recently becoming a legal requirement. As an example you C3 a 2nd floor flat for no rcd protection to socket circuits because of the very fact the flats 2 floors up. Or even no code it. Some tenant chucks an extension lead out the window and as a result receives a fatal shock. YOUR EICR is now being dragged through the legal system because a life has been lost. You know you have done nothing wrong, but how the hell will that help you with those sleepless night before going to trial. The whole things a farce, and once again good Sparkies will be thrown to the wolves'. and all the rule makers will just crawl back under there stones. Its about time they got there act together and started backing up the very people they purport to support, with some clearly defined legally enforceable guidance.
Mark my words. (Rant over)

 

[Mike Johnson]

I think what we are all saying is that the Electrical trade needs an ACOP.

 

[old man sparky]

I think what we are all saying is that the Electrical trade needs an ACOP.

Yep Exactly !! and it should start with manufacturers being held accountable for the quality and robustness of there components. An example (and I make no apology for bringing up an old subject) The build of main switches.
How many times have you guys just wished you could tighten that main switch terminal so that you can be happy that the copper on that 25mm tail is nice and secure. But no !! you cant, because even though your no Arnold Schwarzenegger any attempt to give it that extra tweak will see the ruddy thing start to part at the seems.
So you rely on that nice torque driver knowing full well that with a little bit of movement the ruddy things going to loosen back up. How was this very serious flaw dealt with when fires started springing up. Surround this shoddy gear in a conductive material in an attempt to contain the fire. (you couldn't make this stuff up) So now you have tick boxes waived in front of you with things like made of non combustible material go on lads what you going to do ?? Plastic C/U no code? code 3? Hang on, looks like its been getting a bit warm !! c2 then. Regardless if 12 months from your EICR the thing goes up in flames, here we go again.
Ok so rented property, mandatory EICRs. Tenant's with a where there's blame there's a claim attitude one side of you. And a landlord going white knuckled holding onto his wallet the other side.
Both waiting for you to sign your life away on the dotted line.
Tell you what lads. If the very documents your relying upon for reference are non mandatory and for guidance purposes only, ie BS7671, Nappit code breakers, NICEICs guides ect. Then lets have a disclaimer stating that EICRs are report only documents based on the opinion of the person inspecting valid at the time of inspection and is FOR GUIDANCE ONLY with no legal re course on the person or persons supplying said report.
Because that's exactly what the powers to be are saying, with all the books and document's there reeling out. (at a profit) So why the hell shouldn't we. (Another rant over, sorry lads)

 

[UNG]

I think what we are all saying is that the Electrical trade needs an ACOP.

The ACOP is BS7671 and has been for many years

 

[Mike Johnson]

BS7671 is not an Approved Code of Practice issued by the HSE.