Is this the real bible eicr code breaker

[Octopus]

^^ that's appalling

Lots of Napit members are going to be using this as the gospel truth

 

[Ian1981]

^^ that's appalling

Lots of Napit members are going to be using this as the gospel truth

How can a cable not protected by an rcd be a C3 yet the likelihood of having mechanical protection is nil, but that is a c2 when both methods are acceptable to use ? they must be the same code if both are missing

 

[Octopus]

How can a cable not protected by an rcd be a C3 yet the likelihood of having mechanical protection is nil, but that is a c2 when both methods are acceptable to use ? they must be the same code if both are missing

Inconsistent - must have be written by the guys who produce the regs...

 

[Ian1981]

Inconsistent - must have be written by the guys who produce the regs...

There’s quite a lot of input from various persons so I don’t think it’s been given a overall final say by a senior person/editor on the coding in general

 

[magnoliafan89]

Shouldnt rcds be required when cables are in a wall less than 50mm deep without any protection?

 

[Octopus]

There’s quite a lot of input from various persons so I don’t think it’s been given a overall final say by a senior person/editor on the coding in general

But they are selling it ......................

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Shouldnt rcds be required when cables are in a wall less than 50mm deep without any protection?

Only when run in prescribed routes (safe zones).
RCD protection is not an option for cables elsewhere.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

View attachment 45746 View attachment 45748

This is rubbish.
There is no prohibition in BS7671 against running cables outside of prescribed zones or diagonally. They need to be protected by one of the listed methods.

 

[Ian1981]

This is rubbish.
There is no prohibition in BS7671 against running cables outside of prescribed zones or diagonally. They need to be protected by one of the listed methods.

I just hope people don’t start quoting this book as gospel and use it as the be all and end all of eicr coding

 

[Octopus]

Wonder if we should share this thread with NAPIT?

 

[Ian1981]

Wonder if we should share this thread with NAPIT?

I’ve shown the pics to napit on Twitter
Awaiting their response if any!

 

[Ian1981]

Duplicate post

 

[paullyons]

 

[Wilko]

I'm guessing they didn't send this out for peer review. Or (unkindly) they were drinking the Coporate Kool Aid ...

 

[Wilko]

I am conflicted about suppliers equipment from the posted pages. It implies there is a requirement to code the condition of supplier's seals, which I don't think is true (?). Nearest I can see is a statement in BBB p476 "where inadequacies in the intake equipment are encountered the inspector should advise the person authorising the work..." . Myself, I don't see the lack of an intact suppliers seal (on its own) as a electrical safety concern.

It tickles me that all our certs and reports want us to state the suppliers fuse size, but now we are to code ourselves if we have a look .

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It is a Statutory requirement for the Suppliers fuse to be locked away.

 

[BruvDunk]

Sort of stuff that I've done a 3 week course I'm an electrician folk will be using me thinks.....

 

[Toneyz]

Is this rev2 based upon the 18th?

 

[MFS Electrical]

Can the op scan it and put it on the forum i could save £20.00 .if he want to be our freind

Or PM it to us interested parties

 

[Wilko]

It is a Statutory requirement for the Suppliers fuse to be locked away.

I'm blissfully ignorant - do you have the ref please? Also, not sure how can that little piece of wire be considered to be locking the fuse away (?). And I still don't see how it can be a safety issue for the installation I'm reporting on (?). But happy to learn .