2391 is it really fair?

[ackbarthestar]

Many thanks to Widdler for that.

The format has changed, its more like painting by numbers, in more ways than one. However, its basic stuff and should give those who haven't yet sat this exam a reminder of all those maths classes missed at school due to 'out with the lads' or 'my staffie refused to allow me access to my homework' excuses.

I notice that English composition, grammar and spelling have gone, just the facts are now required with a bit of calculations. perhaps the way forward is to push the 2396 design course for those who aspire to on-site authority and something a bit more than metal munching.

 

[Guest123]

very easy paper, i took mine when i was 18 in my first year of the apprentiship back in 2001, i didn't really know what the 2391 was back then or what i was doing but my firm put me in for it

I find that very, very hard to believe.

 

[Guest55]

very easy paper, i took mine when i was 18 in my first year of the apprentiship back in 2001, i didn't really know what the 2391 was back then or what i was doing but my firm put me in for it and i passed it with no problems first time. i don't know why the pass rate is so low?

Youre clearly way too awesome for this forum if you can pass the 2391 at 18 so its probably best you hang out with other supreme beings.
Either that or youre a troll.
Or an idiot.
The jury is still out

 

[trev]

I find that very, very hard to believe.

I suspect a mick take

 

[glasgowbiker42]

lets be honest the 2391 is probably the only c&g course in many years which didn't mean you showed up and passed!
If you don't put in the effort you'll never pass it.
i'v 236 part 1.2 and 3 an onc and an hnc in eLectrical engineering and it was hard, aswell as 2391 and 2382 and 30 years in the game! YES it is overly difficult but it is what it is another money makin earner for trainining companies!I had an agency phone me last week asking if i knew any 2391 sparks looking for a start? I replies is it a testing job? No! so why do they need 2391?.FANNIES HONESTLY WE NEED TO TAKE OUR INDUSTRY BACK!

 

[Ionicreds]

lets be honest the 2391 is probably the only c&g course in many years which didn't mean you showed up and passed!
If you don't put in the effort you'll never pass it.
i'v 236 part 1.2 and 3 an onc and an hnc in eLectrical engineering and it was hard, aswell as 2391 and 2382 and 30 years in the game! YES it is overly difficult but it is what it is another money makin earner for trainining companies!I had an agency phone me last week asking if i knew any 2391 sparks looking for a start? I replies is it a testing job? No! so why do they need 2391?.FANNIES HONESTLY WE NEED TO TAKE OUR INDUSTRY BACK!

I second that comment, I've just read the paper and now relaxed with a beer I must confess it doesn't seem as bad as it did while I was taking it. That old chest nut lol, it appears I must of misunderstood, misread the volt drop question damn I guess nerves did get the better of me, that bieng said I'm still confident ive done ok, tbf though if it's a piece of piyass now i wouldn't of wanted to take it years back.

 

[fingerbuster]

2391 is pretty daunting - I had to do a re-sit to pass.

I got a lot of help and support from some fine folk on this site.

All I need now is a job!

 

[SPARTYKUS]

2391 is pretty daunting - I had to do a re-sit to pass.

I got a lot of help and support from some fine folk on this site.

All I need now is a job!

fingerbuster - "Posh Liverpool" - West Derby ? :jester:

 

[fingerbuster]

fingerbuster - "Posh Liverpool" - West Derby ? :jester:

HEE HEE, Nah, not that posh.:!blank:

• 
  
  
  

• 
  
  

 

[gpe]

Firstly the examination is rigorous because the inspector of the installation has the responsibility to ensure that no loss of life will occur through the normal usage of the installation, that is a huge responsibility. Secondly the questions sometimes suffer from being badly written, that comes about because they cannot couch a question the same way twice, at least not so often so people cannot be coached to answer specifically worded sections. It is hard, I failed the first time because I forgot to sign the front cover (very expensive mistake!) but I thought the exam was a bitch, the second time there were a couple of very badly worded questions which I answered and at the end ripped them apart for their poor use of English. So on balance by all means let there be rigour but hope that the standard of english in the questions matches the complexity of the subject

 

[vaughant]

It is a tough exam yes and often the questions aren't fair,there were several anomalies in our paper (dec 2006 iirc??) that Nigel our instructor was trying to iron out and get certain peoples exams remarked etc but frankly if you did your homework you passed,simple as,same with most exams.
I must admit I studied hard for it and it paid off but as I'd put my own money into it why would I want to fail?
Certainly agree that the real test begins when you go to a clients house and do your stuff,where's that odd resistance coming from?all of a sudden the old bag can't get her corrie on and your up the loft realising some lazy arsed apprentice on his mobile phone has tapped into the light circuit to power the aerial booster box but never thought to mention it on any paperwork!!!
Well I did this back in 2007 and found it very domestically biased,although a course I feel all sparks should take as it certainly explains why things happen rather than just pointlessly replacing components in the hope you'll find the problem.
My worry with it was that it's so focused on terminology and facts and figures etc then even a total non spark could easily pass that with just a lot of cramming and revision,realistically you could find 90% of the answers online and literally learn it parrot fashion.
Ive found a lot of sparks who talk a good show by quoting references from testing procedures etc have no idea in the real world,particularly my field of industrial control,it's not even mentioned in this type of environment as a plus point so I was very surprised when I passed it.
I have to say I was generally shocked at the level of spark on the course,to be fair to Swansea college they wouldnt allow you on the course without proving your electrical background in quite a stern way so I'm pretty sure most of the lads on it were proper sparks not Electrical Trainee (great term!!!) but their fault finding skills were dismal,drawing reading not much better but then I suppose they'd think I was crap on site spending all day wiring up a few sockets (badly).
cant say I've used it much since I got it as the housing market pretty much crashed before I left ford in 2009 so there wasn't much call for it.
Always fancied looking into the commercial/industrial side of testing as mt knowledge of drives/motors/plc etc could help avert any major disasters!!!
Well,maybe.

 

[hermetic]

so what is the minimum point score needed to pass 2391? I passed my ONC in 1971, and that exam would have been a walkover compared with the one I took then!

 

[fingerbuster]

I think it's 80% - or maybe that's the regs exam - I think the "markers" have a little bit of leeway on the 2391 As in; if lots of examinees around the country misunderstood a certain question they can rejig the marking to compensate.

 

[ackbarthestar]

Ditto.
When I did my ONC Building Services electrical the electrical installations paper was, as I can remember, a 1.5 hour exam on all I knew about Farmyards and Petrol Stations.

No guidance Just :
Q1/ Tells about Agricultural installations
Q2/ What do you know about Petrol Stations
3 pages of solid writing later and a rather good pass (not telling you the actual %)

Not that I have ever used the latter since, but useful for ATEX knowledge and applicable for other types of installations

 

[Guest55]

so what is the minimum point score needed to pass 2391? I passed my ONC in 1971, and that exam would have been a walkover compared with the one I took then!

pass mark is around 45% for the written exam , which shows how difficult it is when you only have to get half the questions correct to pass.

 

[Guest55]

Unlike the 17th regs exam which is around 80% , on a multi-choice open book exam.
may as well give the qual away inside a cereal box lol.
;-)

 

[spark 68]

pass mark is around 45% for the written exam , which shows how difficult it is when you only have to get half the questions correct to pass.

I think you are mistaken here Biff, the 45% refers to the amount of candidates who passed, out of the total number whom sat the exam.

It is a floating pass mark, believed to be around the 60% to 80% mark, and you need to get the minimum mark in each section of the paper, eg. you would not pass with say a 95% mark in section A, and a 40% mark in section B.

 

[Guest55]

I think you are mistaken here Biff, the 45% refers to the amount of candidates who passed, out of the total number whom sat the exam.

It is a floating pass mark, believed to be around the 60% to 80% mark, and you need to get the minimum mark in each section of the paper, eg. you would not pass with say a 95% mark in section A, and a 40% mark in section B.

No my friend , pretty sure the wriitten pass mark was just under 50%.
Well it was in '98 , i can remember all the class asking for clarification just before the exam , everyone sweating and looking like they were on death row lol.

- - - Updated - - -

The student pass level was well below 45% at that time as well.

 

[spark 68]

I can only go off what I was told in Dec 2011 when I did mine, and as C&G don't tell what the actual pass mark is, Widdler and Sirkit breaker will no doubt clarify, but Iam sure it is not as low as that.

When I did mine (passed) only 37% of candidates passed in Dec. 2011.

 

[rich.250]

That's when I took mine!! And I passed ok,
Practical is easy, but the theory is daunting!

I think the exam is fair!
If you don't work at it you won't pass....
Simples

 

[Sooz]

Hi all, i've not posted in a while, but wanted to tell you all my experience. I passed all my exams first time in december 2011, studied a lot, but as some of you have said, anyone with half a brain could have passed them. I have to agree that although i have these 'qualifications' and i use the terms loosley, i have absolutely no confidence that i am doing the right thing. I really think these re-training courses are too fast with no real emphasis on diagnosing problems and fault finding. Someone mentioned about just changing components to find a problem, and that's exactly what i've been taught. I feel a bit jipped!

 

[SPARTYKUS]

pass mark is around 45% for the written exam , which shows how difficult it is when you only have to get half the questions correct to pass.

Hello Biff

don't think thats right mate. Best fix bayonets!

 

[hermetic]

80%, well that's about what we needed for a pass with credit. I have just re read my earlier post, and it sounds a bit arrogant, so let me explain. I took my exam after the relevant period of college training, I sat in the class and listened and understood, and asked questions if I didn't, but the City and Guilds system we had then was different in that every trainee completed a year in industry and if your employer thought you were worth it (ie you had managed to keep your job) you started college in your second year of employment. If you failed the first year of college, you were generally out of the industry!, If you could convince your employer that there were valid reasons why you failed, you just might get to do the whole first year course again, and then pass, but on my course, most who failed left and turned up later asking if I wanted fries with my meal. As someone has already mentioned,most of what this exam contains could be passed by memory alone, very few if any of the questions are asked in a way that would require any understanding of the core concepts to answer. I also concur with the OP on the ridiculous use of jargon and TLA's (three letter acronyms, actually they are not acronyms, but that's another post)> You seem to come across more and more of this techno-babble, and it is usually inserted into conversations to make otherwise simple concepts seem complex and non-understandable to "outsiders" thus boosting the ego of the user. You get a lot of this in the computing field, and I have found that some instructors (mainly, it has to be said, Americans) who do not seem to know what some of them actually stand for! Also, they are a movable feast, PFC? prospective fault current or power factor correction? Result? Confusion in an industry where confusion is dangerous. Sufficient to say that I think their use in an exam is ludicrous, and again someone above has mentioned "getting the terminology exactly right" That is a simple memory trick, and if that is the criteria being used to select the senior electrical engineers of tomorrow, god help us all.

 

[hermetic]

I'll just ad to my above post, each year of my three year course had three exams to pass, and you had to pass all three to progress to the next year. We had separate papers in theory and calculations, Electrical engineering principles, and regulations.

 

[Guest55]

Hello Biff

don't think thats right mate. Best fix bayonets!

It was at the time as best as i can recall ,but that was 14 years ago , maybe spark 68 information is correct for exams since 2000.
And i always bring a shotgun to a knife party ;-).

 

[Guest55]

But i'm going to move the discussion onto a new phase if i may.

So , until recently , the 2391 was considered the gold standard for sparks - it sorted the pro's from the chancers.
But what now if Electrical Trainee's can get the qual just by swotting up on past papers and the student pass level is creeping up to 40 odd % ?

Someone mentioned that the new 2396 design qual could now set the bar to the high level formerly occupied by the 2391.
I agree with this sentiment / idea.
Its a million miles away from domestic work in its course content and can't be passed purely by memorising old exam papers.
The course project can only be completed with sound understanding of commercial installation principles and the maths / equations are much more complex , incorporating elements such as adiabatic , mcb pre-arc / energy let through factors , large scale diversity assessments and so on.

Please discuss further those with opinions.............

 

[trev]

I think anything above L3 is really going to start to sort the wheat from the chaff, you can go down the design route or the courses that will eventually lead you to a degree

 

[electrosparks]

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

 

[Silly Sausage]

I might have to do this 2396 (D&V) because the barstewards lost my 2400 project at the time. Got the exam.
Sure I read yesterday on here, someone has taken it already and it's quite harder now :-( plus the cash...

 

[Guest55]

I might have to do this 2396 (D&V) because the barstewards lost my 2400 project at the time. Got the exam.
Sure I read yesterday on here, someone has taken it already and it's quite harder now :-( plus the cash...

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.

 

[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?