- Reaction score
- 771
Not quite, too much inaccuracies in your statements.
What is "e,on clothing" {sic}?
-
Please checkout the new poll we will be pushing hard, and want some good stories to come out of this
result are public - you can change your vote over time, which might genuinely be the case from time to time.
- Thread starter Davehaywire
- Start date
Search the forum,
Not quite, too much inaccuracies in your statements.
What is "e,on clothing" {sic}?
Anyone carrying out live work has to have the letter 'e' stamped all over their clothing obviously!
Not specifically you phil d, but it needs to be understood that the DNO's are considered competent for live working.
However, round here (WPD), you would NEVER get a lone worker doing a cut out change, safe, new, damaged or not.
It would just not be done, a cut out change is a 2 man job, end of.
I've had a few done now and it always is, and they tell me always will be, and they consider it safer than a live cut & splice in the road.
The only time a live cut & splice is done is to remove a BS951 clamp from a lead sheath for works of this kind.
Again as far as I have been told.
Rethink that one Paul. To replace a breach they don’t break the joint down. They simply extend the existing breach or pot end the existing live branch and then make a new breach.
Its fun doing it live, makes you think what you are doing. Work on one conductor only with the others shrouded. Last one I did was at 550V, 70mm² PVC to a 0.3”² SWAPILC my body was live in relation to earth at 318V. The connections were sweated, you can’t insulate the metal ladles.
Paper leads are more resilient than you lot think. A BS951 isn’t going to damage the lead sheath or the underlying paper insulation. Get hold of a piece of PILC and strip it, you will see what I mean. The insulation layers of papers overlap, a waxed jute infill takes up any voids. They are then overlapped with waxed belting papers. Then the lead sleeve is applied, molten lead tends to be a bit hot. It doesn’t even mark the belting papers.
No I don’t recommend fitting BS951 clamps simply as the copper inside the lead expands and contracts. The lead then expands but doesn’t contract at the same rate (lead is very plastic) so the clamp will slacken.
I would happily sweat a new bond on to a live PILC cable. I do it with a single wipe on one side of the cable. I'm not going in to how it's done. Its not a secret, but it's a trick that us older ones know.
I am stating what was the norm when i was working in the industrial sector and specifically within the company i worked for. I can also factually tell you, that live working was still being undertaken upto at least just 4 years ago, in one of the last operational plants on the site that i once worked within. I don't know what they do or don't do at the Swansea plant these days however.
What i will expand on here, is the safety equipment/tools that the company made available to us when conducting live working. All our tools were ''Fully'' insulated that included pliers and side cutter heads (never seen the like of which since), all spanners, socket sets, hammers, even hacksaw frames and blade (sprung guard) Full face shields, gloves (suitable for the voltage being worked on) even full suits when deemed necessary. The full insulated tool set (and it was a fully comprehensive set ) was said to have cost £4 to £5000 and were talking now about the 70's...
So impossible to drop a tool anywhere, that would breach, or come into contact with anything that would cause a catastrophic breakdown/flash over.
I can't honestly say what is or isn't acceptable now in the UK, because i just don't know. I still find it hard to believe that live working isn't still being carried out on industrial line processes etc as and when deemed necessary....
It is! lol. But no one is running around shouting about it coz of the 'elf and safety brigade!
Or telling the Engineering manager to f*** off if he needed you to work live!! lol!!
You say that as if someone who has never worked live hasn't had real on the job training??
Times change mate. I bet you'll find hard statistical evidence to show that the rate of deaths from working live has dropped dramatically from your day to now!
Life has a higher value now too. You only have to look at the rate of deaths in the coal mining industry 40 years ago and compare it to today to see this!
As much as we loath them sometimes, I reckon the 'elf 'n safety brigade have done more good than harm.
Couldn't have put it better myself!! lol!!
And it's all actually true, we as 3rd year apprentices were shown/taught how to safely conduct ourselves with live working. As i say, it was then simply part and parcel of being an industrial electrician working in a production sector of our industry!!
Aye ..... and we were allowed to play conkers in the school yard an' all !!
I don't think he said that at all, what he is saying is that the training gained in our era was by far, more comprehensive than what is the norm found today....
Don't think you can compare coal mining death rates of 40 years ago with today, all the coal mines have been nigh on closed for years now, so can't help having much lower figures.
Hmm, i don't think manufacturing companies will agree with you too much on that one. Those buggers are one of the main reasons why UK goods are so uncompetitive on the home and world markets... And why much of the UK manufacturing industries have buggered off overseas lol!!
Before you start on that look at the production methods. It had sod all to do with safety, productivity drove the improvements.
Made things better? We can’t compete internationally being hamstrung by jobsworths.
I know what he's saying really, but it might sound to others like a blanket statement along the lines of "I was trained well, all you lot today though have had crap training".
Per head of course you can.
Hmm, I can see your point, but I'd say that there are other much bigger factors at play when it comes to our products being uncompetitive! But then we delve into the deep dark world of politics on a forum with our comfy keypads and screens separating us from each other and quite often separating us from reality itself!
Errr, safety lamps? lol (ok I know that was more than 40 years ago, but you get my drift)
Good moaning...........just got in.
reasonable in UK law incorporates the economic impact of the situation.
in this situation a balance would have to be struck between the risk vs the economic impact.
If the risk can be mitigated down to a level that's deemed to be acceptable compared to the economic impact of the alternative, then it's perfectly acceptable legally for trained competent electricians to work live, just as it is for trained experienced workers to carry out short duration work from ladders.
Your statements are no different from the complete rubbish spouted by some H&S idiots about ladders being banned from being used. It may be company policy in some companies (potentially because they've judged that the economic impact isn't high enough to justify the risk level), but it's not what the law that's been quoted says.
the main way that people will fall down with this legally would be the lack of risk assessment, method statement, etc.
I said economic impact alone.
Working live, even safely carries significant risks. If the only factor to consider is money, then live working shall never be permitted. If by the loss of money people start to suffer, ie a company goes out of business, people lose jobs, people can't provide for their families, then it ceases to become just economic doesn't it.
If you have to shut down a factory for half a day which results in a few thousand pounds, maybe even tens of thousands of pounds, but doesn't actually affect anyone personally then live working shouldn't be permitted (that's not to say that it doesn't happen).
If however you need to join a new underground supply cable to an existing live one suppying power to 100 homes, some of which might have residents that rely on electricity for their own health and/or safety, then live working is obviously going to be permitted.
What's wrong with the good old volt stick? LOL!!
Think we've all enjoyed the discussion, i don't see that anyone's picking holes for the sake of it, i see it, more of giving a different viewpoint in specific areas that's been brought up...
It's like you're comment on shutting down a factory for half a day, ...depending on what plant on our complex had to be shut down, you wouldn't have been talking about tens of thousands, you'd be looking at the hundreds of thousands, that being in just the lost production. Then the lost wages of at least a couple of thousand workers that are standing around doing nothing. Then other costs like ruined products that needs taking off the line, and the long start up processes i talked about before.... It all then starts getting Very expensive for that half a day's shut down!! lol!!
I'm not one for old timer bashing, but this is the one thing that riled me as well. I know deep down they don't mean it to sund this way because they are all good blokes on here, but sometimes things can come across in a way that can seem disparaging to others without it meaning to.
I fully agree with you, I just get sick of the constant bashing of younger sparks, brought up in a different era, trained differently, but not necessarily in any way worse training.
Then technically what they are doing is illegal, no ifs, no buts. Not that I am passing judgement.
That's wrongful dismissal then, I'd have my employer hauled up in front of an industrial tribunal if that were me! I would win too!
Agree here, but like I said earlier, I'm my own boss, so if I do it I choose to do it or I leave the work, the decision is on my head. I would never ask anyone else to carry out live working on my behalf!
I've seen nothing you've written on these boards to indicate that you are in any way an expert on health and safety law, and everything you've written in this thread pretty much says you aren't, so yes it bugs me to see you presenting these opinions as statements of legal fact.
The test of reasonableness in UK case law specifically does allow for the economic impact to be considered either by itself, or in conjunction with other issues, there needs to be a balance taken between the economic impact (and / or any other negative impacts) vs the level of risk the worker is being exposed to.
FWIW 2 people were killed at work from electrocution last year vs 25 from falls from height, yet working at height isn't banned in all but the most extreme of circumstances, the risk just needs to be sensibly mitigated, and only correctly trained and experienced staff should be allowed to do it.
If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the IET, or HSE
Effectively it's a self fullfilling prophecy that if new sparks aren't trained to work live, then they can't be judged as being competent to work live even when the situation would have justified it, so live working effectively does become illegal as eventually there won't be anyone employed who is competent to do it.
No I haven't, not at all! At no point have I even incinuated this!
All I have done is point out what the EAWRs say!!! That if for any reason you can work dead, then to work live is illegal! If you end up working live just so that a company can save a few quid then you are working illegally!!! Jesus!!! What is so hard to grasp here?!?
Of course there are plenty of factors to take into account, but money alone is not one of them! If the amount of money is great enough that it affects people in other ways then you are introducing other factors!
And you will find that when that level of risk is death (not injury and potential death), just death, the economic impact alone is not reason enough!
WTF has working at height got to do with this thread? There are probably a few million more people working at height in the country at any given time than there are people working live?!
Sorry to harp on mate but how can you TRAIN sparks to work live when the EAWR basically say you shouldn't?
To do it properly, first you'd need to calculate the risk level, which is an assessment of the danger level X the frequency it could be expected to occur. This is what would need balancing against the economic loss associated with
Then you'd need to assess the impact of a range of mitigation measures to reduce both the danger level and frequency of occurrence to provide a combined risk level that would then be judged against the associated costs involved in either not doing the work at all, or shutting down the power for the duration of the work.
While the ultimate danger from electrocution remains death in all situations, the chances of this occurring in most situations can probably be reduced to an acceptably low level via methods to reduce the impact of the electrocution / touching of the live parts - eg PPE, insulating mats, one hand working, as well as the chances of it occuring in the first place via the training and experience of the electrician, good lighting, protecting the area of work, working tidy etc etc.
This applies to one off jobs, if it's going to be regular work, then you'd also need to factor in the frequency of this work through the lifetime of the plant / employee's working life vs lifetime costs of plant closures etc This would be where the concept of all but urgent tasks being carried out during plant closure periods with the power off would come from - as an example.
Bottom line, is it's a judgement call, and the buck would stop with the person making that judgement call, and / or the person responsible for them up the line, along with the person actually carrying out the work who assumes responsibility for their claim to be competent to do it (unless they've objected and been forced into it), and adopting all the safe working methods detailed in the method statement. Some companies may well take the judgement that they don't want to be making these judgement calls, and ban live working entirely, which is their prerogative, but they'd be wrong to then go around stating that live working is specifically banned by statute / HSE.
The relevant section of the EAWR have been quoted on this thread, and the EAWR doesn't say this.
Here's the HSE guidance on the EAWR, I'd really suggest that a lot of people on this thread could benefit from reading it.
I'm not surprised they come across as sneering, when some of those younger sparks were trying to lay down the law to them and tell them what they've been doing all their working lives has been illegal since 1988.
Generally though, I tend to find the older sparks on this board as more shaking their heads in dismay at the lower levels of training and competence they're seeing in the younger sparks coming through into the industry rather than sneering at this, at least until a younger spark get's their backs up.
Discuss Working on live distribution boards? in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
Not quite, too much inaccuracies in your statements.
What is "e,on clothing" {sic}?
- Reaction score
- 3,570
Anyone carrying out live work has to have the letter 'e' stamped all over their clothing obviously!
G
Guest111
OK as a twist I'll throw in an incident fron just before christmas,we needed a new service head,the old black Lucy one was damaged.So out comes a young lad from the networks,he was a nice chap and we got talking and I asked him about live working,this is where it gets interesting.To replace the head you remove the cover,then the plastic shroud from inside the fuse carrier,slacken 4 screws,2 on the live block and 2 on the neutral,remove 2 fixing screws and slide unit upwards.You are now left with the phase and neutral conductors spaced approx 2inches apart,slide new unit on tighten screws secure to board and replace cover,job done.Nice easy,dry and well lit,the job takes about 10 minutes.However this is not the correct way as it is classed as working live,the correct way is to excavate the cable,strip back and cut it,bearing in mind it's live! then replace the head then rejoin the cable in the hole possibly in the wet,possibly in poor light and from experience in a small hole bent over.I could not believe it when he told me this,I know which option I'd prefer and which I think is safest.Needless to say he did it the way I'd have done,as he said common sense needs to be applied,had it been a pitch filled cast iron head then there would have been a different outcome.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Reaction score
- 771
Not specifically you phil d, but it needs to be understood that the DNO's are considered competent for live working.
However, round here (WPD), you would NEVER get a lone worker doing a cut out change, safe, new, damaged or not.
It would just not be done, a cut out change is a 2 man job, end of.
I've had a few done now and it always is, and they tell me always will be, and they consider it safer than a live cut & splice in the road.
The only time a live cut & splice is done is to remove a BS951 clamp from a lead sheath for works of this kind.
Again as far as I have been told.
G
Guest111
That's what I thought,to me doing a splice live is more dangerous than changing a head live but that's what the man said their policy was,he was sent out as it was deemed dangerous and it was 7.30 at night,so he said he could do it without the splice as it had been classed as urgent.
- Reaction score
- 2,044
Working live for me is a judgement call, if I don't like it, I work out of hours or an agreed "tool change" or whatever, TBH live working is the smaller risks I encounter in a typical day, got caught on the ear today by a slotting disk that let go, it really hurt and drew blood, worse than any belt I have had. As for working at height well, that just another level all together, surprised there is not more talk about what angle is safe when working at 4M up a ladder.
J
jaythegooner
hi all
a bit late into this post but here goes ,you are not allowed to work live on any panel , db , or any other board unless suitable training and appropriate clothing ( face guard , 1000v gloves , basically a rubber suit, e,on clothing for sub stations . if you were killed your insurance would be invalid as it would be deemed as careless on your behalf ,and your employer jailed .hope it helps regards jason .
( sorry folks ,eon supply authority clothing .)
a bit late into this post but here goes ,you are not allowed to work live on any panel , db , or any other board unless suitable training and appropriate clothing ( face guard , 1000v gloves , basically a rubber suit, e,on clothing for sub stations . if you were killed your insurance would be invalid as it would be deemed as careless on your behalf ,and your employer jailed .hope it helps regards jason .
( sorry folks ,eon supply authority clothing .)
K
Knobhead
Rethink that one Paul. To replace a breach they don’t break the joint down. They simply extend the existing breach or pot end the existing live branch and then make a new breach.
Its fun doing it live, makes you think what you are doing. Work on one conductor only with the others shrouded. Last one I did was at 550V, 70mm² PVC to a 0.3”² SWAPILC my body was live in relation to earth at 318V. The connections were sweated, you can’t insulate the metal ladles.
Paper leads are more resilient than you lot think. A BS951 isn’t going to damage the lead sheath or the underlying paper insulation. Get hold of a piece of PILC and strip it, you will see what I mean. The insulation layers of papers overlap, a waxed jute infill takes up any voids. They are then overlapped with waxed belting papers. Then the lead sleeve is applied, molten lead tends to be a bit hot. It doesn’t even mark the belting papers.
No I don’t recommend fitting BS951 clamps simply as the copper inside the lead expands and contracts. The lead then expands but doesn’t contract at the same rate (lead is very plastic) so the clamp will slacken.
I would happily sweat a new bond on to a live PILC cable. I do it with a single wipe on one side of the cable. I'm not going in to how it's done. Its not a secret, but it's a trick that us older ones know.
Last edited by a moderator:
E
Engineer54
I am stating what was the norm when i was working in the industrial sector and specifically within the company i worked for. I can also factually tell you, that live working was still being undertaken upto at least just 4 years ago, in one of the last operational plants on the site that i once worked within. I don't know what they do or don't do at the Swansea plant these days however.
What i will expand on here, is the safety equipment/tools that the company made available to us when conducting live working. All our tools were ''Fully'' insulated that included pliers and side cutter heads (never seen the like of which since), all spanners, socket sets, hammers, even hacksaw frames and blade (sprung guard) Full face shields, gloves (suitable for the voltage being worked on) even full suits when deemed necessary. The full insulated tool set (and it was a fully comprehensive set ) was said to have cost £4 to £5000 and were talking now about the 70's...
So impossible to drop a tool anywhere, that would breach, or come into contact with anything that would cause a catastrophic breakdown/flash over.
I can't honestly say what is or isn't acceptable now in the UK, because i just don't know. I still find it hard to believe that live working isn't still being carried out on industrial line processes etc as and when deemed necessary....
- Reaction score
- 3,570
It is! lol. But no one is running around shouting about it coz of the 'elf and safety brigade!
- Reaction score
- 2,810
First of all congratulations and respect to you all for having a intelligent debate without any knickers getting in a twist!!, and both sides have aired their views well!.
Live working...... Forget the H&S, it's all about being capable for the task in hand. Have I put circuits into DB's both single and three phase live??, yes I have , have I drilled a C50 board live, yep done that, also breaker changes nd stripping cables out.
Would I attempt to go near Tonys board live?... Not a chance, I wouldn't fiddle with it dead, it's all about knowing your limitations and not getting yourself in to deep, last one I did controlled all of the fire shutters in a shopping centre, if I had shut the power down, the shopping centre would go into lock out with shutters everywhere
Live working...... Forget the H&S, it's all about being capable for the task in hand. Have I put circuits into DB's both single and three phase live??, yes I have , have I drilled a C50 board live, yep done that, also breaker changes nd stripping cables out.
Would I attempt to go near Tonys board live?... Not a chance, I wouldn't fiddle with it dead, it's all about knowing your limitations and not getting yourself in to deep, last one I did controlled all of the fire shutters in a shopping centre, if I had shut the power down, the shopping centre would go into lock out with shutters everywhere
E
Engineer54
Or telling the Engineering manager to f*** off if he needed you to work live!! lol!!
K
Knobhead
This is getting us nowhere.
We’re simply generations apart.
Like E54, I had real on the job training, not just a classroom/training booth. The dangers of and precautions for live working drummed in to us.
We’re simply generations apart.
Like E54, I had real on the job training, not just a classroom/training booth. The dangers of and precautions for live working drummed in to us.
K
Knobhead
- Reaction score
- 3,570
You say that as if someone who has never worked live hasn't had real on the job training??
Times change mate. I bet you'll find hard statistical evidence to show that the rate of deaths from working live has dropped dramatically from your day to now!
Life has a higher value now too. You only have to look at the rate of deaths in the coal mining industry 40 years ago and compare it to today to see this!
As much as we loath them sometimes, I reckon the 'elf 'n safety brigade have done more good than harm.
E
Engineer54
Couldn't have put it better myself!! lol!!
And it's all actually true, we as 3rd year apprentices were shown/taught how to safely conduct ourselves with live working. As i say, it was then simply part and parcel of being an industrial electrician working in a production sector of our industry!!
G
Geordie Spark
Aye ..... and we were allowed to play conkers in the school yard an' all !!
E
Engineer54
I don't think he said that at all, what he is saying is that the training gained in our era was by far, more comprehensive than what is the norm found today....
Don't think you can compare coal mining death rates of 40 years ago with today, all the coal mines have been nigh on closed for years now, so can't help having much lower figures.
Hmm, i don't think manufacturing companies will agree with you too much on that one. Those buggers are one of the main reasons why UK goods are so uncompetitive on the home and world markets... And why much of the UK manufacturing industries have buggered off overseas lol!!
K
Knobhead
Before you start on that look at the production methods. It had sod all to do with safety, productivity drove the improvements.
Made things better? We can’t compete internationally being hamstrung by jobsworths.
- Reaction score
- 3,570
I know what he's saying really, but it might sound to others like a blanket statement along the lines of "I was trained well, all you lot today though have had crap training".
Per head of course you can.
Hmm, I can see your point, but I'd say that there are other much bigger factors at play when it comes to our products being uncompetitive! But then we delve into the deep dark world of politics on a forum with our comfy keypads and screens separating us from each other and quite often separating us from reality itself!
Errr, safety lamps? lol (ok I know that was more than 40 years ago, but you get my drift
)
K
Knobhead
It's Saturday morning Damian. Time to sober up.
- Reaction score
- 6,965
Haha, c'mon Tony, you've read my previous posts on this thread, you know where I stand. If it's gotta be done it's gotta be done, but on your head be it! Just make sure you're safe and don't moan if you end up dead
Good moaning...........just got in.
what statutory documents state that?
reasonable in UK law incorporates the economic impact of the situation.
in this situation a balance would have to be struck between the risk vs the economic impact.
If the risk can be mitigated down to a level that's deemed to be acceptable compared to the economic impact of the alternative, then it's perfectly acceptable legally for trained competent electricians to work live, just as it is for trained experienced workers to carry out short duration work from ladders.
Your statements are no different from the complete rubbish spouted by some H&S idiots about ladders being banned from being used. It may be company policy in some companies (potentially because they've judged that the economic impact isn't high enough to justify the risk level), but it's not what the law that's been quoted says.
the main way that people will fall down with this legally would be the lack of risk assessment, method statement, etc.
ie. working live on the sly without having proper risk assessments, method statements etc in place would be illegal and you'd not have a leg to stand on in court if HSE pulled you on it.
This is completely different to having those policies and procedures in place (and being followed) to authorise live working where it would be unreasonable to work dead, where the working situation has been made reasonably safe and is being carried out by someone who is competent to work in that manner.
Not that anyone who doesn't feel competent to work live in any given situation (as in hasn't been specifically trained in safe working practices for working live in those situations) should work live in that situation.
This is completely different to having those policies and procedures in place (and being followed) to authorise live working where it would be unreasonable to work dead, where the working situation has been made reasonably safe and is being carried out by someone who is competent to work in that manner.
Not that anyone who doesn't feel competent to work live in any given situation (as in hasn't been specifically trained in safe working practices for working live in those situations) should work live in that situation.
- Reaction score
- 3,570
I said economic impact alone.
Working live, even safely carries significant risks. If the only factor to consider is money, then live working shall never be permitted. If by the loss of money people start to suffer, ie a company goes out of business, people lose jobs, people can't provide for their families, then it ceases to become just economic doesn't it.
If you have to shut down a factory for half a day which results in a few thousand pounds, maybe even tens of thousands of pounds, but doesn't actually affect anyone personally then live working shouldn't be permitted (that's not to say that it doesn't happen).
If however you need to join a new underground supply cable to an existing live one suppying power to 100 homes, some of which might have residents that rely on electricity for their own health and/or safety, then live working is obviously going to be permitted.
- Reaction score
- 3,570
Oh, and I might add, I have enjoyed the discussion on this thread. I also don't believed I have even taken a specific 'side' if you will. Just pointed out where the law stands and discussed the pros and cons of abiding by it to th letter. But what I am not going to put up with is another 'pick holes in everything damian says just for the hell of it' threads!
You wanna pick holes, find someone else coz I'm not in the bloody mood!
You wanna pick holes, find someone else coz I'm not in the bloody mood!
- Reaction score
- 1,556
What's wrong with the good old volt stick? LOL!!
- Reaction score
- 2,044
I have noticed a marked change in practice from when I did my time in the 80s, I suppose because I left the industry and then came back I have noticed a couple of things which these threads aloed to. Sparkies of the same age today are not as well trained or confident working live, their employers won't allow it. One example of a couple of years ago, I was doing some testing (live) of some 1000A panel boards and I reported they were full of dust and the earth was missing. Reported to chief electrical eng who called his sparkies to hoover out the board and put a N-E link in place. The board was large with plenty of space. The chief wanted panel off and it was in a sub with no windows. I said that means you will have no light and no power for the hoover. 2 hours later the sparkies rig up a long extension from another source and break out the torches. As this job was holding up my testing I was getting twitchy and said guys i'll do it live as it was a doddle. But the answer was no. So this simple task cost 20 times what it would have taken me to do. I realised then - times had changed, BTW the chief was older than me and came from NCB so it was not him being ----, he had moved with the times and I WAS the dinosaur.
Last edited:
E
Engineer54
Think we've all enjoyed the discussion, i don't see that anyone's picking holes for the sake of it, i see it, more of giving a different viewpoint in specific areas that's been brought up...
It's like you're comment on shutting down a factory for half a day, ...depending on what plant on our complex had to be shut down, you wouldn't have been talking about tens of thousands, you'd be looking at the hundreds of thousands, that being in just the lost production. Then the lost wages of at least a couple of thousand workers that are standing around doing nothing. Then other costs like ruined products that needs taking off the line, and the long start up processes i talked about before.... It all then starts getting Very expensive for that half a day's shut down!! lol!!
- Reaction score
- 85
Is it a case of us older boys are real men and just get on with it and the whipper snappers are brought up on method statements and risk assessments?
wedge a bit of cardboard in and get on with it
wedge a bit of cardboard in and get on with it
C
CTID
I have to step in for the younger, apparently less trained lads here, as unfortunately, due to the tighter health and safety, the introduction of management with no electrical background, it is harder and harder to be permitted to work live. Common sense no longer prevails with these people and nobody wants to risk their job by going against what a supervisor imposes.
I myself have thankfully had chance to work live, on brand new 3phase installations and also on old boards where every copper strip/plate was on show once cover was removed. Do I feel safe working live on these boards, yes, has it been necessary yes.
I would not however say that those that haven't had this opportunity are less trained than me, they have had less opportunities certainly but I can guarantee they will have areas of expertise that I don't.
Working live has its needs and when done, should only be done when the relevant RAMS are in place, to do it on the sly is just asking for trouble.
What does rile me is the old timers saying they are the best/real men/properly trained/real apprenticeship people of this trade. Times evolve, training to match, if a company says no to live working, due to health and safety/EAWR/policies/insurance then that spark will not get the opportunity to work live, I don't agree that he isn't properly trained though. I have learnt a lot from old timers, but I tell you something, I have also shown them a thing or two also. Also you go on about as an apprentice you worked live as if your superior to young ones who didn't, well guess what, unless you hold a gold card nowadays, a lot of sites won't let you work live, therefore the apprentice of today doesn't have the opportunity.
Like everything times change and the old timers need to embrace this rather than snigger at those who do things differently to how they did it.
I myself have thankfully had chance to work live, on brand new 3phase installations and also on old boards where every copper strip/plate was on show once cover was removed. Do I feel safe working live on these boards, yes, has it been necessary yes.
I would not however say that those that haven't had this opportunity are less trained than me, they have had less opportunities certainly but I can guarantee they will have areas of expertise that I don't.
Working live has its needs and when done, should only be done when the relevant RAMS are in place, to do it on the sly is just asking for trouble.
What does rile me is the old timers saying they are the best/real men/properly trained/real apprenticeship people of this trade. Times evolve, training to match, if a company says no to live working, due to health and safety/EAWR/policies/insurance then that spark will not get the opportunity to work live, I don't agree that he isn't properly trained though. I have learnt a lot from old timers, but I tell you something, I have also shown them a thing or two also. Also you go on about as an apprentice you worked live as if your superior to young ones who didn't, well guess what, unless you hold a gold card nowadays, a lot of sites won't let you work live, therefore the apprentice of today doesn't have the opportunity.
Like everything times change and the old timers need to embrace this rather than snigger at those who do things differently to how they did it.
- Reaction score
- 3,570
I'm not one for old timer bashing, but this is the one thing that riled me as well. I know deep down they don't mean it to sund this way because they are all good blokes on here, but sometimes things can come across in a way that can seem disparaging to others without it meaning to.
C
CTID
I fully agree with you, I just get sick of the constant bashing of younger sparks, brought up in a different era, trained differently, but not necessarily in any way worse training.
- Reaction score
- 6,965
Frightens me, this 'oldtimer' term. Th'owd fella's still going strong at 81 and wouldn't take it kindly, even though it does have a ring of truth about it.
Although, whilst in the wholesalers a while ago, a lad in his 20's asked me what multimeter I used. When I showed him my Fluke 83 he asked how to test Zs with it. Summed it up a bit, really. May be showing my age.....
Although, whilst in the wholesalers a while ago, a lad in his 20's asked me what multimeter I used. When I showed him my Fluke 83 he asked how to test Zs with it. Summed it up a bit, really. May be showing my age.....
M
martinh287
I know of electricians and also skilled labourers at the same company That work live on a daily basis as part of there job. They are installing and removing circuits on 3 phase boards with no guards, training or ppe. Some of these boards have been modified with cables in and out and like spaghetti and the conductors have no circuit identifaction.
It is wrote in the rams that no live working is to be undertaken but employees are laided off if they are unwilling to work live. Isolating would only inconvenience a few workers.
I thought I should share this with the debate to put the point across that sometimes if you don't work live you wont keep some jobs.
Sad but true
It is wrote in the rams that no live working is to be undertaken but employees are laided off if they are unwilling to work live. Isolating would only inconvenience a few workers.
I thought I should share this with the debate to put the point across that sometimes if you don't work live you wont keep some jobs.
Sad but true
- Reaction score
- 3,570
Then technically what they are doing is illegal, no ifs, no buts. Not that I am passing judgement.
That's wrongful dismissal then, I'd have my employer hauled up in front of an industrial tribunal if that were me! I would win too!
Agree here, but like I said earlier, I'm my own boss, so if I do it I choose to do it or I leave the work, the decision is on my head. I would never ask anyone else to carry out live working on my behalf!
It really bugs me when people who don't know much about the subject make statements asserting legal authority for their personal opinions on the interpretation of health and safety law, which is what you've been doing all thread.
I've seen nothing you've written on these boards to indicate that you are in any way an expert on health and safety law, and everything you've written in this thread pretty much says you aren't, so yes it bugs me to see you presenting these opinions as statements of legal fact.
The test of reasonableness in UK case law specifically does allow for the economic impact to be considered either by itself, or in conjunction with other issues, there needs to be a balance taken between the economic impact (and / or any other negative impacts) vs the level of risk the worker is being exposed to.
FWIW 2 people were killed at work from electrocution last year vs 25 from falls from height, yet working at height isn't banned in all but the most extreme of circumstances, the risk just needs to be sensibly mitigated, and only correctly trained and experienced staff should be allowed to do it.
If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the IET, or HSE
my previous post was written before seeing this post, which I'd agree with entirely.
There must be an issue though if younger sparks are being trained that they should never work live, and therefore not being trained in safe live working practices, that they will then not be as safe or competent to actually work live when it would otherwise be justified for them to have done so.
Effectively it's a self fullfilling prophecy that if new sparks aren't trained to work live, then they can't be judged as being competent to work live even when the situation would have justified it, so live working effectively does become illegal as eventually there won't be anyone employed who is competent to do it.
- Reaction score
- 3,570
No I haven't, not at all! At no point have I even incinuated this!
All I have done is point out what the EAWRs say!!! That if for any reason you can work dead, then to work live is illegal! If you end up working live just so that a company can save a few quid then you are working illegally!!! Jesus!!! What is so hard to grasp here?!?
Of course there are plenty of factors to take into account, but money alone is not one of them! If the amount of money is great enough that it affects people in other ways then you are introducing other factors!
And you will find that when that level of risk is death (not injury and potential death), just death, the economic impact alone is not reason enough!
WTF has working at height got to do with this thread? There are probably a few million more people working at height in the country at any given time than there are people working live?!
C
CTID
Gavin, read my long post just before the one you have replied to. I have nothing against what you have said in your reply, I am in agreement that people should be taught, as I have been, to work safely in live boards. My argument was against a few comments sniggering at younger sparks who will not or can not work live, mainly due to their companies no longer allowing it, thus some of the old timers were acting superior to the these younger sparks.
- Reaction score
- 771
Gavin,
Whilst working at height, like live working is not illegal, there is a defined hierarchy of control for WAH and the WAH regs.
First control measure for WAH, don't.
Just like the first control measure for requiring live working, don't.
My NEBOSH GC tutor was a very experienced & competent H&S guy.
Old school, off the shop floor, and union trained, so very practical, not academic.
I knew him when he was in his union roll @ a customer plant.
There were debates about guarding on machines.
Himself & the Co. Safety officer agreed on the cost vs benefits argument.
Their answer to us as suppliers was simple.
If it is going to cost less to sort the issue than the loss will cost in paper money, then do it.
I think that is a good way to think of this.
However, turned on it's head in a way.
If some poor soul gets electrocuted, what would be the cost to the businesses involved, is this less than the cost of shutting down?
If yes, shut down, if no, then prepare costs & procedures to work live, is it now cheaper to shut down?
Or that knd of thing, IYKWIM?
Whilst working at height, like live working is not illegal, there is a defined hierarchy of control for WAH and the WAH regs.
First control measure for WAH, don't.
Just like the first control measure for requiring live working, don't.
My NEBOSH GC tutor was a very experienced & competent H&S guy.
Old school, off the shop floor, and union trained, so very practical, not academic.
I knew him when he was in his union roll @ a customer plant.
There were debates about guarding on machines.
Himself & the Co. Safety officer agreed on the cost vs benefits argument.
Their answer to us as suppliers was simple.
If it is going to cost less to sort the issue than the loss will cost in paper money, then do it.
I think that is a good way to think of this.
However, turned on it's head in a way.
If some poor soul gets electrocuted, what would be the cost to the businesses involved, is this less than the cost of shutting down?
If yes, shut down, if no, then prepare costs & procedures to work live, is it now cheaper to shut down?
Or that knd of thing, IYKWIM?
- Reaction score
- 17,090
Sorry to harp on mate but how can you TRAIN sparks to work live when the EAWR basically say you shouldn't?
no it doesn't, it says
- avoid work at height where they can;
that's a very simplistic way of looking at it, I'm not really sure it's even a good rule of thumb. - in fact it definitely isn't as the HSE states that the level of financial loss must be grossly disproportionate to the level of risk, so anything that equated the 2 would leave you losing in court if the worst happened. (unless I'm misreading that post)
To do it properly, first you'd need to calculate the risk level, which is an assessment of the danger level X the frequency it could be expected to occur. This is what would need balancing against the economic loss associated with
Then you'd need to assess the impact of a range of mitigation measures to reduce both the danger level and frequency of occurrence to provide a combined risk level that would then be judged against the associated costs involved in either not doing the work at all, or shutting down the power for the duration of the work.
While the ultimate danger from electrocution remains death in all situations, the chances of this occurring in most situations can probably be reduced to an acceptably low level via methods to reduce the impact of the electrocution / touching of the live parts - eg PPE, insulating mats, one hand working, as well as the chances of it occuring in the first place via the training and experience of the electrician, good lighting, protecting the area of work, working tidy etc etc.
This applies to one off jobs, if it's going to be regular work, then you'd also need to factor in the frequency of this work through the lifetime of the plant / employee's working life vs lifetime costs of plant closures etc This would be where the concept of all but urgent tasks being carried out during plant closure periods with the power off would come from - as an example.
Bottom line, is it's a judgement call, and the buck would stop with the person making that judgement call, and / or the person responsible for them up the line, along with the person actually carrying out the work who assumes responsibility for their claim to be competent to do it (unless they've objected and been forced into it), and adopting all the safe working methods detailed in the method statement. Some companies may well take the judgement that they don't want to be making these judgement calls, and ban live working entirely, which is their prerogative, but they'd be wrong to then go around stating that live working is specifically banned by statute / HSE.
where does it say this?
The relevant section of the EAWR have been quoted on this thread, and the EAWR doesn't say this.
Here's the HSE guidance on the EAWR, I'd really suggest that a lot of people on this thread could benefit from reading it.
214 Suitable precautions should include as appropriate
equipment safely (see also regulation 16);
(b) the provision of adequate information to the person carrying out the work
about the live conductors involved, the associated electrical system and the
foreseeable risks;
(c) the use of suitable tools, including insulated tools, equipment and protective
clothing (see also regulation 4(4));
(d) the use of suitable insulated barriers or screens (see also regulation 4(4));
(e) the use of suitable instruments and test probes;
(f) accompaniment by another person or people if the presence of such person
or people could contribute significantly to ensuring that injury is prevented;
(g) the restriction of routine live test work (for example product testing) to specific
areas and the use of special precautions within those areas such as isolated
power supplies, non-conducting locations etc;
(h) effective control of any area where there is danger from live conductors.
If they have been trained properly to work live, and the younger sparks haven't, then by definition, the older sparks are superior sparks on this point. They would be legally allowed to carry out work that the younger less well trained sparks wouldn't be allowed to do due to the lack of training and experience they're gaining in safe live working practice (if I'm wrong on this point feel please correct me).
I'm not surprised they come across as sneering, when some of those younger sparks were trying to lay down the law to them and tell them what they've been doing all their working lives has been illegal since 1988.
Generally though, I tend to find the older sparks on this board as more shaking their heads in dismay at the lower levels of training and competence they're seeing in the younger sparks coming through into the industry rather than sneering at this, at least until a younger spark get's their backs up.
Reply to Working on live distribution boards? in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
Similar Threads
Evening all, I'm relatively new to the trade and have just moved house. Looking to rewire and was looking at a few things, could someone tell me...
Hi, I am just wondering if there is anybody out there interested in allowing me to do a little voluntary work with your company to gain a little...
Looking for a bit of advice from the wider audience / those who may have done similar before.
I entered the game a bit later / in a non...
For context i am in my 2nd year in college and my head is going round in circles a question in my project for which i need to select the right...
Hello,
I'm not an electrician, more one of those 'competent DIYers', so probably the worst kind :)
My electric shower broke, the shower firm came...
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
YOUR Unread Posts
-
SSE 3-Phase Upgrade Gone Wrong!Very true, so the isolator as above wouldn't need to have a dedicated N early make break as...- Latest: mainline
-
Where do these parts go?Hi everyone! I am thinking of replacing the old switches in my flat with some new ones. I...
- Latest: marvel71
-
The end of NVQ3Have heard from a couple different people recently that NVQ3 will no longer be taught in college...
- Latest: Dustydazzler
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by untold.media Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.