How can anyone think this is acceptable ...

[Octopus]

The certificate had a registration number on it but no logo ..........................

a quick google search revealed ......................


Yes, you've guessed it ...................... NICEIC contractor.

 

[Wilko]

If they've done no live testing then my thought @Murdoch is the Cert must be incomplete. Interested to hear what Assessor says .

 

[telectrix]

all tese negative waves about working live. next thing is i'll be tempted to isolate circuit before changing a socket or light switch. , FFS. .

 

[Midwest]

The NICEIC have been making a big thing about working live for some time now.

In Certsure's Magazine Winter 2017-18 issue, there is one technical article on 'Prospective fault current in domestic and similar properties'.

It describes consumer units to BS EN 61439-3, single phase supply 250V, via a service cut containing an HBC fuse to BS 1361 Type II, not exceeding 100A.

It also states the maximum prospective fault current declared by DNO, suitably connected to take account of service cable length, does not exceed 16 kA.

It demonstrates the tests, and reasoning for.

It finishes with a section on EaWR 1989 & live testing, and a section headed Conclusion. In the Conclusion 'and where conditional rating is applicable, it follows that carrying out an unnecessary test to determine the prospective fault current at the origin, or indeed elsewhere in the installation, is unjustified live working and hence could be seen as a breach of Reg 14 EaWR 1989'.

I think I've done a fair precise of the article, the issue (magazine) is not freely available as a download at the moment. Perhaps this is one of the live tests (not to carry out) your colleagues spoke of?

Have to say, when I've had my Elecsa assessments, I've been asked to demonstrate these (live) tests.

 

[Octopus]

re working "live"

plugging in your MFT to a socket to test the Zs is no different than plugging in your mobile phone charger ..................

 

[davesparks]

re working "live"

plugging in your MFT to a socket to test the Zs is no different than plugging in your mobile phone charger ..................

It’s very different, the mobile phone charger is an appliance connected between L and N, if it’s not done correctly the phone won’t charge.
The tester is deliberately passing a current via the cpc, if it’s not done correctly (dead tests passed, cpc properly connected to the means of earthing) it can cause a lethal voltage to appear on exposed parts connected to that cpc.

 

[polo1]

What a load of tripe from some on here. If some stopped the constant, boring NICEIC bashing and focused on the real issue perhaps matters would be clearer.
NICEIC area engineers certainly encourage contractors to minimise the use of “live” testing wherever practical, simply to reduce risk of harm, eg live tests at a ceiling rose, as dead tests will prove the existence of a cpc, polarity etc. Is plugging in a tester to measure Zs a live test.... of course it is but it presents no risk to the person carrying out the test.
I totally agree that some people/organisations use the H&S card too frequently, but our area engineer is certainly not one of them.
Is live testing the same as live working????
As for the OP, I would certainly be querying the EIC, especially if the installation has rcds/rcbos.

 

[Octopus]

As for the OP, I would certainly be querying the EIC, especially if the installation has rcds/rcbos.

The installation has a AMD3 dual RCD board

As for the NICEIC "bashing" - everyone of the recent "poor" jobs I've been to, which there is certification - HAS BEEN done by a NICEIC member ...................

 

[Wilko]

In Certsure's Magazine Winter 2017-18 issue ... It finishes with a section on EaWR 1989 & live testing, and a section headed Conclusion 'and where conditional rating is applicable, it follows that carrying out an unnecessary test to determine the prospective fault current at the origin, or indeed elsewhere in the installation, is unjustified live working and hence could be seen as a breach of Reg 14 EaWR 1989'.

Thanks for posting @Midwest
I have 2 thoughts - pfc testing is to establish less than 16kA and 6kA (MCB for example) and DNO only comment on 16kA at source. Note they do not certify it's less than 16kA so we test it where that is possible. Or have I missed something?
Next one - saying pfc tests "could be seen as a breach of reg14" is akin to saying my butt "could be seen" as attractive, but that is also unlikely

 

[stevels4]

If I try to enquire ze from the DNO for tncs they will say 0.35 ohms which is ridiculous and may lead to unnecessarily larger cables installed for circuits to comply with ADS

Maximum should be 0.35 Ohms for PME, 0.8 Ohms TNS but I seem to think some DNOs have revised PME maximum to 0.20 Ohms for new connections.

 

[Woofie]

PFC? That's a challenge in a dead test. Not to mention phase rotation.

 

[Octopus]

Maximum should be 0.35 Ohms for PME, 0.8 Ohms TNS but I seem to think some DNOs have revised PME maximum to 0.20 Ohms for new connections.

Got any information or links to back this up - I very curious

ta

 

[MDJ]

The 0.35 reading is for single phase supplies and three phase up to 200 amps, after 200 amps in three phase the reading is lower and might well be 0.20