Discuss Testing emergency lighting in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Sorry, that would be initial verification.
Monthly or annual testing, battery duration testing and functional testing do not require verification of design.
Any alterations which could affect the existing design, such as new walls, different colour scheme, etc, should result in a revised design at the time of the alteration.

Clause 4.1, 4.2, 5.2.2, 5.2.8, 6.7 and 11 states otherwise.

You do not verify the design is correct, you verify that it has been carried out, is in place and is a true reflection of what is installed.
 
If you are annual or monthly testing you do not need to verify the design. Comments should be noted on test certificate & log book. If the fire risk assesment deems it an unsatisfactory design then that will force the client to take action.
Annual test you are there to test that the battery withstands the 3hr test without the light fading. No new exits or walls are apparant and the general el install, i would always comment if no easily accesible key switch is readily available but wouldnt give an unsatisfactory if there wasnt one.

Part of the periodic inspection is to check a design has been carried out, it is in place and is a true reflection of what is installed. Whether the design meets BS5266 is not part of the testing but checking it is 'there' is a part of the testing procedure.

You also cannot deem it either 'satisfactory' or 'unsatisfactory'. It either complies or it does not. If there is not a suitable test facility (which can be the OCPD if suitable) then the installation does not comply.
 
I would estimate 99% of emergency lighting installations I test or assess for FRAs are not and have never been compliant with not only current but the standards they should have been installed to at the time, you can also include fire alarm systems to this. I find it bewildering that people berate those who undertake electrical work without a sound underpinning of the requirements and yet will happily install safety systems with the same ignorance.

Agree completely. 99% of the periodic inspections we do never comply to BS5266. Actually I would say that we have never carried out an inspection without a deviation recorded. No design in place is always an issue.

Having said that the emergency lighting we install is also hardly ever designed. We include these costs at the tender stage and when the installation is of a decent size the clients do the design but when it is additional emergency lighting they do not want to pay the costs for design.

A comment is made on the certification that the client did not want the design completed.
 
In many instances, the installer is installing to a design supplied by another.
Cables is cables whether it’s for power and lighting, emergency lighting or fire alarms.
Such installers don’t need to know the maximum height of a void above a ceiling before a smoke head has to be installed.
They don’t need to know whether the head should be heat or ionisation.
They don’t need to know the minimum distance from a wall, or from light fittings and other equipment.
They don’t need to know when an emergency exit sign should be maintained or non-maintained.

Yes knowing such things would be useful, but as long as they install as per the design, everything should be ticketyboo.

The difference between a quality tradesman and a trained monkey.
 
recently i had to do an upgrade to an existing system,replacing the emergency lights with led lamp system,exit lamps and replacing the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms.
at that time none of the original circuitry needed to be changed.
but i verified that it was still in compliance with the regs and sufficient to handle the new system.
because the new systems required less power extra lighting was installed in the stairways.
all these changes were recorded and submitted to the fire marshal.
for final approval.
after the system communication test was verified with the dispatch center I filed the documents with the proper authorities in the courthouse.
as i said earlier our requirements are different but the three important things are that the installer must be sufficiently qualified and must have all pertinent documentation and follow procedure properly.
 
Sounds like your system is better and more governed than ours, the installation of safety systems in this country is a free for all with an attitude of I can do that with absolutely no knowledge of the necessary standards.
 
basically ours is governed more by our own decisions! many do not take the initiative and pay the price later for not covering their backside. I prefer to cover all bases in the matter of emergency systems.
I would actually prefer that there were international standards that had to be followed! this way there would be no question about it.
 
I dont see it happening but i would love to see training standardized as well
US.UK. and other countries (not just quick courses but competent skills)
I may not be a UK spark but I do recognize the value of proper training.
 
The difference between a quality tradesman and a trained monkey.
Unfortunately there obviously aren’t enough trained monkeys about, so they have to put up with us quality tradesmen instead.
The last EM lighting installation I installed, they specified metal adaptable boxes to be used as junction boxes.
Unfortunately there was no provision for earthing the adaptable boxes.
Whilst that may be acceptable on the 28V data side, I do not consider it acceptable on the 230V side.
Me telling the trained monkey resulted in shrugged shoulders, but what else do you expect?

On another occasion I was asked by a trained monkey to fix a non-maintained emergency exit light. In a communal car park.
The fault being that the exit light stays on all the time.

The last time I did a Fire alarm install, one of the trained Monkeys tried to drill through the wall of a bank vault.
This resulted in having to cut off the 1m SDS drill bit flush with the wall, patching the wall and after purchasing a new drill bit, the quality tradesman (me) having to drill a new hole.

To be honest the British Standards for both Fire alarms and EM lighting are not what I consider acceptable.
Then again they are probably written by trained monkeys attempting to safeguard jobs for other trained monkeys.
For instance EM lighting test switches which do not switch off the non-EM lighting. How are you then supposed to verify anything?
 
Unfortunately there obviously aren’t enough trained monkeys about, so they have to put up with us quality tradesmen instead.
The last EM lighting installation I installed, they specified metal adaptable boxes to be used as junction boxes.
Unfortunately there was no provision for earthing the adaptable boxes.
Whilst that may be acceptable on the 28V data side, I do not consider it acceptable on the 230V side.
Me telling the trained monkey resulted in shrugged shoulders, but what else do you expect?

On another occasion I was asked by a trained monkey to fix a non-maintained emergency exit light. In a communal car park.
The fault being that the exit light stays on all the time.

The last time I did a Fire alarm install, one of the trained Monkeys tried to drill through the wall of a bank vault.
This resulted in having to cut off the 1m SDS drill bit flush with the wall, patching the wall and after purchasing a new drill bit, the quality tradesman (me) having to drill a new hole.

To be honest the British Standards for both Fire alarms and EM lighting are not what I consider acceptable.
Then again they are probably written by trained monkeys attempting to safeguard jobs for other trained monkeys.
For instance EM lighting test switches which do not switch off the non-EM lighting. How are you then supposed to verify anything?

By turning off the OCPD or the other light switch.

The test switch should only isolate the permanant feed. This is how it should be done.
 
If it’s enough to ensure safe egress from the building, then it won’t be plunged into darkness.
Can’t have it both ways.
Either the object of monthly testing is to verify the design, in which case all the normal lights will have to be off to check lux levels.
Or it’s simply to check the EM fittings work.
To my mind switching off the normal lights would help in both cases.
 
It's probably safe to assume that a person deemed "competent to test the emergency lights" will largely work 'working hours', which for much of the year will be during daylight hours, when due to shared natural light it will be hard to plunge a building into darkness and also to obtain an accurate lux reading for just the emergency lighting.

During winter months it will be possible to plunge the building into darkness, however the benefit of getting a more accurate reading of the emergency lighting output might be outweighed by the panic and disruption caused by plunging a large call centre, school or hospital into darkness; I can't see many facilities managers going for that option.
 
Always been a bone of contention this although it is less frequent to see test facilities interrupting the general lighting.
The last sentence of Reg 8.3.3 BS5266:1 states The test device should not interrupt power to any other electrical equipment that could cause a hazard.
 
If it’s enough to ensure safe egress from the building, then it won’t be plunged into darkness.
Can’t have it both ways.
Either the object of monthly testing is to verify the design, in which case all the normal lights will have to be off to check lux levels.
Or it’s simply to check the EM fittings work.
To my mind switching off the normal lights would help in both cases.

I think you need to look at emergency lighting again. You are miles off.
 
A monthly check is a routine functional test not a duration test generally carried out by a nominated person. Test facility off, does it/they operate then back on and check charge indication, that is it.
 
A monthly check is a routine functional test not a duration test generally carried out by a nominated person. Test facility off, does it/they operate then back on and check charge indication, that is it.
... Which is in some way a million miles away from flicking a switch and seeing if the lights come on.
 

Reply to Testing emergency lighting in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
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
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock