Quick couple of coding questions

[La Poste]

If you did a PIR for a 2391 exam and after testing found insulation resistance on a circuit to be 0.4M Ohms between line and earth on an outside light which code would you use?
Would you use code 2, requires improvement or code 3 requires further investigation?
I used code 3 and got the wrong answer according to this mock test I am doing.


Also if you found the breaking capacity of the fuses to be below the PFC would you code 1 or code 2 it?

Thanks alot.

 

[telectrix]

the first part could be a 2 or a 3 IMO. the second part i would code 2. as requires improvement, but no immediate danger.

 

[La Poste]

The other codes were to do with not having RCD protection in the offices, Code 4.
Now I thought offices were full of skilled and instructed persons.
I guess if the question does not mention they are skilled and instructed then you have to assume that they are not.
Also the work shop ring had no RCD protection code 4.
I thought work shops were full of skilled and instructed persons and the only time you would need RCD protection was if you had a socket that could be used for mobile equipment outdoors.
I wonder how flexible City and Guilds are with their answers to coding questions.

 

[malcolmsanford]

That IR question is a little teaser. If you read Reg 612.3.2 it states

" The insulation resistance measured with the test voltages indicated in Table 61 shall be considered Satisfactory if the main switchboard and each distribution circuit tested separately, with all it's final circuits connected but with current-using equipment disconnected, has an insulation resistance not less than the appropriate value given in Table 61"

So as your reading was 0.4 Mohm it can not be seen as satisfactory and yes a code 2.

 

[La Poste]

Could someone give some examples of a code 3?

 

[telectrix]

Zs reading above max. allowed. boxed in BS951 clamp on water or gas so you can't actually see that it's connected. anything that you think requires further investigation to determine if it's satisfactory or not.

 

[La Poste]

I have a fault that has come to the inspectors attention that is outside the extent of the installation to be inspected.

 

[telectrix]

I have a fault that has come to the inspectors attention that is outside the extent of the installation to be inspected.

please elaborate.

 

[La Poste]

Tough one, I read it out the book and am not sure myself.

I guess if he is in the car park testing an outside light and notices the car park lights that are not part of the inspection are falling apart with wires hanging out of them all over the place.

 

[La Poste]

"The person ordering the report should be advised that the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, due to the agreed extent or limitations, be fully investigated"

 

[malcolmsanford]

We have a thread on here about someone asking about a cable going through their loft, If you found this on a PIR, then you could code that a 3. To be honest I think the new EICR as done away with this code 3 as such, because it is something that is rarely used, to be honest I don't think I ever have.

 

[telectrix]

good answer

 

[La Poste]

Absence of a main protective bonding connection to a lightning protection system where it is not known by the inspector if it is required to protect against lightning side flashes"

 

[malcolmsanford]

Absence of a main protective bonding connection to a lightning protection system where it is not known by the inspector if it is required to protect against lightning side flashes"

There you go there is another, which I would imagine is used quite a lot in down town suburbia.

These sort of examples are rare and that is why I think code 3 was rarely used, and is now being consigned to regs bin of history

 

[La Poste]

Insulation resistance when measured as a whole at the installations intake board is below 1M Ohm.

 

[VMan]

There you go there is another, which I would imagine is used quite a lot in down town suburbia.

These sort of examples are rare and that is why I think code 3 was rarely used, and is now being consigned to regs bin of history

Or until the IET want some more Dividends so will add it back in the BGB, recolour the front page Brown and steel another £80 off us all.

 

[edrobbo8]

Absence of a main protective bonding connection to a lightning protection system where it is not known by the inspector if it is required to protect against lightning side flashes"

If it was agreed with the person ordering the work that the lightning protection system was NOT included in the test (as they get a specialist in to test it - for a church), could you ignore this? Or should it still be noted? Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Or until the IET want some more Dividends so will add it back in the BGB, recolour the front page Brown and steel another £80 off us all.

The colour for the next amendment is yellow.
Not certain of the date, 2014/15. Will have more relating to alternative supplies, and may introduce the requirement for earth electrodes at every installation.

 

[VMan]

The colour for the next amendment is yellow.
Not certain of the date, 2014/15. Will have more relating to alternative supplies, and may introduce the requirement for earth electrodes at every installation.

The cost of the BYB??

 

[Deleted member 26818]

£90 - £100.