2391 is it really fair?

[electrosparks]

What happened to link to dropbox was just about to download and now seems to of disappeared

 

[DaveyD]

Also worth a mention is that you can only sign up to do the new 2396 course if you already have both 17th regs and 2391 inspect & test.

Is it this one? http://www.cityandguilds.com/docume...-L4A-DV-Electrical-Installations-QHB-v1.1.pdf

Before undertaking this qualification candidates should seriously consider undertaking the Level 3 Award in Initial Verification and Certification of Electrical Installations (2394) and/or Level 3 Award in the Periodic Inspection, Testing and Certification of Electrical Installations (2395) as well as obtaining industry experience. It is also strongly recommended that candidates have achieved either the City & Guilds Certificate in the Requirements for Electrical Installations (BS7671) (2382) or similar qualifications where candidates have demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the 17th edition in order to ensure they have every opportunity of achieving this qualification

 

[Guest55]

Yep , thats the fella.
Entry requirements may vary for each training provider , but most i've seen only want experienced sparks to sign up for it.

 

[LangElect]

I have done both and found 2391 a quite a bit harder than the Design Exam - but then from what I remember, the Design Exam has a lot of the same content as 2391, which is prob why it seemed easier. I think of all the C&G Exams I have done, the 2391 is the only one I felt really proud of - its a good old fashioned exam that really does test your knowledge and ability to think situations through. I had heard that the pass rate for 2391 was low - I guess I was lucky in that the school I went to averaged about a 90% pass rate for the exam - don;t think I have ever worked so hard though!

 

[stephanjs]

Hi
On questions 6 do they require all working out as its only a 3 mark question e.g

Rt = 1/r1 + 1/R2 +1/R3
Rt = 1/120 + 1/80 + 1/60
Rt = 0.008 + 0.0125 + 0.0166
Rt = 1/0.0371
Rt = 26.95 ohms

Or is there a shortened method which would achieved the same mark

Formula should be 1/rt=1/r1+1/r2+1/r3

The way the answers are marked, I am informed, is that if you put the wrong formula down, what ever you put down after, even if it is correct, you will not get any marks for it.

 

[Silly Sausage]

My understanding of the 2396 design course from discussions on the IET forum is that its no more difficult than the old 2400 even though the new course is a level 4 qualification.
And further good news is that the inspection and testing elements that were in the the 2400 have been removed.
Also worth a mention is that you can only sign up to do the new 2396 course if you already have both 17th regs and 2391 inspect & test.
But as you mention , its quite expensive at around £700 and not many venues are running the course.
I hope to do it myself this year but its not guarranteed.

If the new version is at the same level as the 2400, I reckon I need to check out if I can just redo the project somewhere. NO WAY am I shelling out 700 beer tokens!

 

[trev]

Formula should be 1/rt=1/r1+1/r2+1/r3

The way the answers are marked, I am informed, is that if you put the wrong formula down, what ever you put down after, even if it is correct, you will not get any marks for it.

Not strictly true mate, you can put down a total load of nonsense but if you get the right answer you will get 1 mark. The way it works is if the question is worth say 5 marks you get 1 for each stage of the calculation

 

[spark 68]

To be honest Trev, I thought it was the otherway, in so long as you got the formula correct, and all of the steps of the working out, then you did not need to get the correct final answer to get the marks, but I would stand to be corrected.

 

[stephanjs]

Not strictly true mate, you can put down a total load of nonsense but if you get the right answer you will get 1 mark. The way it works is if the question is worth say 5 marks you get 1 for each stage of the calculation

Hi Trev. the guidance for examiners marking the 2391 scripts is the answer to the questions have to be based on the correct assumptions. Strictly if you start off wrong then anything following which may be correct is ignored in the answer. this is one reason why it has such a low rate of pass.
You are welcome to speak to an EV or under the new term QC to confirm this.

 

[Silly Sausage]

Depends on the way the Q is worded.
If it says 'State' or similar, you're workings are irrelevant.
If it says 'Prove' or show your workings, then you get marks for correct formulae etc even if the final answer is wrong.

 

[trev]

Yeah the same thing applys mate, for everything you get right in a 5 mark answer you will get 1 mark regardless of if and where you go wrong, so if you get stages 1 3 and 5 right you get 3 marks regardless of 2 and 4 being wrong. That's what I was trying to say in the second sentence

 

[trev]

Strictly if you start off wrong then anything following which may be correct is ignored in the answer.
QUOTE]
When I resat the course we had a guy called Mike Enniss lecturing, he had been on the examining board and I'm just repeating what he told us mate

 

[Silly Sausage]

Sorry Trev, I'm saying the same as you!
I'll leave this in your capable hands.

 

[trev]

Sorry Trev, I'm saying the same as you!
I'll leave this in your capable hands.

I knew that, me and you against the world Archy

 

[Silly Sausage]

Back to the OP, I can't see what's unfair about this paper (Thanks widdler for sticking it up)
I did mine in 2003 and I thought it was one of the toughest exams I'd ever done (and I've done some stinkers).
Either in the meantime I've actually managed to learn most of it or it was an easy paper.
Mind you, I've noticed this before, at the time you're studying something new, it seems really hard, then you revisit it a number of years later and think 'That's easy, what was the problem?'

 

[trev]

Like you Archy I can't see what's unfair about it, it's supposed to be something that's worth something not like one of these turn up for a class and get a bit of paper courses. I had to resit mine because I underestimated it, the day of my practical I found out my daughter was pregnant so my head was so far up my butt it was untrue. As a consequence I failed the practical but because first time round I'd passed that and failed theory (2nd time obviously passed theory) they gave me the qual.
You mention revisiting it and thinking "why did I worry" don't you think that's just because the pressure is off and you have more experience to base your judgment on

 

[Silly Sausage]

You mention revisiting it and thinking "why did I worry" don't you think that's just because the pressure is off and you have more experience to base your judgment on

No, I think initially one's brain is being bombarded with new information and concepts which you've got to regurgitate in a rapidly looming exam, it's hard (for me) to take in, in a short space of time.
Over the subsequent years, I suppose your brain assimilates it all and it starts to fall into place.
Aye, indeed, the pressure is off as well!

 

[stephanjs]

On a more general note is the underlying problem here.

In the mid 70's we had labourers, electricians, approved electricians, and technicians. To become a technician you had to have been an approved electrician for 5 years and have passed the 235 C. To be an approved electrician you needed to have been and electrician for 2 years and have passed the 235 B. To be an electrician you needed to have passed the 235 A, have an electrician's certificate and have completed a 5 year apprenticeship or equivalent.

I am not sure what the 235 A is equivalent to but maybe the present 2330 L2. The 2330 L3 is possibly equivalent to the old 235 B. For definite, the 235 C was the equivalent of the present 2391-10 and the 2391-20 combined. This was one qualification in those days. Employers (JIB) hated allowing their employees to undertake this course as it meant that they would have to pay them technician rates.

Because I had good school grades, at 16, I started straight on the B which meant that in 3 years I had the technical qualification to become and approved electrician. As I was still an apprentice I went onto the C. I passed the exams but was not permitted to finish my project. Having gained the electrician certificate at 19 years of age, I could be graded as an electrician a year earlier (after 4 years at 20). This meant that my employer was no longer obligated to send me to college. They immediately sent me to work away from home so I could not complete the project.

While it had its bad points, that system worked. It was changed by employers and governments in an effort to reduce costs. 5 year indentured apprenticeships do not exist now as far as I am aware. But on a more serious note, electrical improvers (anyone calling themselves and electrician) can install circuits and conduct basic tests which are signed off by a competent person at the office who has never even visited the site. Further, and worse still, someone who calls themselves and electrician can turn up on a short term contract for an employer and using their own test instruments, test the circuit and judge it safe. The employer saves on the cost of the test instrumentation, the maintenance and calibration of the instrument. The employer is getting (or thinks they are getting) an approved electrician at electricians rate or in some instances at apprentices rates.

The result is more persons will be killed like the mother in Birmingham. It is an interesting case as the coroner has refereed back his finding to the CPS for possible manslaughter charges against persons in the company due to a judgement of unlawful killing. (Briefly, installation tested by trainee and signed off at office by competent person. However, screw had punctured cable in metal studded wall leaving entire wall live. Local flood meant that mother was going to shut off water. As she touched metal pipework while standing in water, she received fatal shock.)

Until legislation like in Europe and other countries or in the UK that mirror "gas safe" that only competent registered electrician can work on electrical installations and full traceability and tractability of test instruments by persons signing off installations are introduced in the UK, I am afraid that the problems will not be solved. Frank Chapple of the EEPTU did not help in the mid 70s and we only have Gas Safe (previously CORGI) now.

I believe that all 2391 qualified persons should have to resit the test every 5 years to continue as competent person. With some law on electrical workers we would not be abused as much and more lives will be saved.

There is nothing wrong with persons of low experience passing the 2391-10. However, inspection and testing is the domain of Approved Electricians and Technicians only.

 

[Silly Sausage]

You've just broken my glasses with that font size!

 

[trev]

"I believe that all 2391 qualified persons should have to resit the test every 5 years to continue as competent person."
Would you be happy if this rule was introduced regarding the driving test?
Because, I believe although I could be wrong, more people are killed in car accidents every year than in electrical accidents. Or would it be appropriate for you to have to resit the C&G 236 or 2330 depending on when you took them as technology and working methods have progressed since I served my apprenticeship. Does that make me more or less "competent" than a 22 year old who qualified last week for example?