TT eicr code?

[spark 68]

Either way, under the 16th an s-type would have provided fault protection for any circuit on a TT. Now it won't. That is my reasoning.

I would agree with you if the install including S/Os used outdoors was solely protected by an upfront S-type 100mA RCD(or a 100ma non TD), that is not what me and Des are saying though, I refer you back to the drawings I posted earlier.

 

[D Skelton]

I would agree with you if the install including S/Os used outdoors was solely protected by an upfront S-type 100mA RCD(or a 100ma non TD), that is not what me and Des are saying though, I refer you back to the drawings I posted earlier.

I know what you and Des are saying and I'm disagreeing with you lol. If a circuit (any circuit whether that be lights, sockets, heating, cooker etc...) has a maximum permitted disconnection time of 0.2s and its sole means of fault protection is by a 100mA s-type then I would C2 it.

 

[telectrix]

but that's calling it potentially dangerous just because the disconnection time limits have been changed in the regs. from 0.4 to 0.2.

 

[D Skelton]

but that's calling it potentially dangerous just because the disconnection time limits have been changed in the regs. from 0.4 to 0.2.

Yep

 

[spark 68]

Okay, lol that is fine.

I would say I don't see how you can fail a fully compliant immediately previous edition install that was current until very recently (2008) ?, by all means recommend an improvement to todays standard (C3) but to fail it just does not make sense.

I worked mainly to the 16th until 2008, I am too young for the 15th (wink).

 

[polo1]

Guys, thanks for an interesting set of posts (and even better, which haven't descended into a pi**ing contest). I find these sorts of discussions really good in helping me decide what I would do in future similar circumstances.

 

[Des 56]

Guys, thanks for an interesting set of posts (and even better, which haven't descended into a pi**ing contest). I find these sorts of discussions really good in helping me decide what I would do in future similar circumstances.

I'm sure the feeling is reciprocated knowing of your interest in the debate

Now the confession
I was blooded in the late 14th Thats just 2 editions later than trev and geordie,tel is obviously of the Charleston era

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Well thank you Spin for that rather patronising lesson on how to conduct myself whilst inspecting and testing an electrical installation. It might help you to know that I'm well aware how to code something that is potentially dangerous!

I couldn't care less what previous regulations state, I am inspecting the installation to current regulations and a major part of that procedure means determining whether or not the installation complies with the requirements for ADS. An overcurrent protective device not disconnecting a circuit in the required time under fault conditions IS potentially dangerous, and saying so is not tantamount to fraud, nor does it indicate a lack of knowledge?!?!?!? What a load of twoddle!

To use the quote from the current regs; "This does not necessarily mean that they unsafe for continued use or require upgrading". There you have it fella. This means that it may not in all cases be unsafe, but in some cases it could be. That is what the use of the words 'does not necessarily' indicate. If the IET would never say that earlier editions of the regulations were 'unsafe', or at least 'less safe' than the current, there'd be no need for them to keep changing them would there?!




I have read it, and nowhere does it say that in all cases a bare live conductor must be insulated whether it is within reach or not.


Finally, I couldn't help but pick out this little gem! Talk about contradiction!

Sorry, didn't mean to be patronising, just wanted to use the correct terminology rather than the mish mosh that had been used so far in the thread.
One of the problems I have discovered with the 2391 qualification, is that Electricians take and pass the exam, then believe that they can go out and conduct PIRs. They further believe that they do not have to take into consideration earlier editions of the Regulations.
This unfortunately results in a number of installations being unnecessarily condemned, and in many cases house holders paying out for unecessecary work.

Sorry, but you are obviously misconstruing the quote from the Regulations, I suggest you re-read it.
What it is saying, is that an installation, should not be considered as being unsafe, just because the Regulations have been changed since the installation was constructed. However the installation may well be unsafe for a host of other reasons, such as : deterioration, damage, non-compliant alterations/additions, etc.

There are many reasons why the Regulations are up-dated.
New technologies, cheaper products, public perceptions regarding safety, and in at least one instance, so as to prevent inspectors condemning installations unnecessarily.

A 'bare' conductor is un-insulated.

Is it a contradiction?
The inspection of an existing installation is referred to as a Periodic Inspection. Conducting such an inspection is known as conducting a PIR. Perhaps some time in the future, it will become known as conducting an EICR, but I doubt it. Then again people refer to PAT testing, and MOT tests, so who knows?

At the end of the day, if you want to go around condemning installations just because they are constructed to earlier editions of the Regulations, good luck to you. I hope it brings in lots of work.
Just don't be too surprised when someone calls you out on it.

 

[spark 68]

One of the problems I have discovered with the 2391 qualification, is that Electricians take and pass the exam, then believe that they can go out and conduct PIRs. They further believe that they do not have to take into consideration earlier editions of the Regulations.
This unfortunately results in a number of installations being unnecessarily condemned, and in many cases house holders paying out for unecessecary work.

Sorry, but you are obviously misconstruing the quote from the Regulations, I suggest you re-read it.
What it is saying, is that an installation, should not be considered as being unsafe, just because the Regulations have been changed since the installation was constructed. However the installation may well be unsafe for a host of other reasons, such as : deterioration, damage, non-compliant alterations/additions

Exactly, that is why I keep older edition reg books to aid in T&I even though I spent longer with the 16th there were a lot of changes in the various amds of that edition, and the fact that you forget things when no longer working to that edition.

The only reason for adding a C2 for the immersion heaters without a thermal cut-out in older edition installs was because a baby got scalded to death, therefore a known dangerous, if not fatal condition.

The second paragraph by spin I have quoted was what I was getting at earlier in the thread where I mentioned "other factors creeping in"

Just because current regs have moved the goal posts doesn't mean that the older install is unsafe for continued use, if that was the case we would be seeing people dropping like flies, Des is right we would be instructed in no uncertain terms to rectify, this is not the case, the newer regs are not retrospective for the most part.

I wonder if part of the problems with incorrect coding are partly due to newer qualified/younger sparks who have only really been taught/trained to 17th standards ?

And no D, that is not a dig at newer sparks before you say. lol (I would have posted a big smiley wink here if I could post smileys) lol

 

[D Skelton]

Sorry, didn't mean to be patronising, just wanted to use the correct terminology rather than the mish mosh that had been used so far in the thread.

What are you, chief examiner? lol

Who cares? We understand each other.

One of the problems I have discovered with the 2391 qualification, is that Electricians take and pass the exam, then believe that they can go out and conduct PIRs. They further believe that they do not have to take into consideration earlier editions of the Regulations.
This unfortunately results in a number of installations being unnecessarily condemned, and in many cases house holders paying out for unecessecary work.

One of the problems I have discovered with the 2391 qualification is that electricians take and pass the exam, then believe that they can dictate to every other electrician exactly what situation warrants which code without taking into accout that within reason, what I may class as potentially dangerous you may not and vice versa. Although much of what we do is clear cut with regards to inspection and testing, there is still so much out there that is completely subjective.

Just the other day I was discussing on here the application of a C3 for cable run directly on a suspended ceiling. I said that I would not code it as there are no regulations to back up the use of a code whilst others said that they would C3 it. Would I accuse them of being fraudulent and lacking knowledge? No. It is entirely up to them and if they can justify it then that is their call to make.

I do take into consideration earlier regulations, but the extent of which I take these into consideration is up to me and me alone so long as I can justify my decision.

Sorry, but you are obviously misconstruing the quote from the Regulations, I suggest you re-read it.
What it is saying, is that an installation, should not be considered as being unsafe, just because the Regulations have been changed since the installation was constructed. However the installation may well be unsafe for a host of other reasons, such as : deterioration, damage, non-compliant alterations/additions, etc.

No, I am not misconstruding it, it is clear in what it says and I stand by what I said earlier. "This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use" means exactly what it says. It means that it could be unsafe, but not necessarily.

If it meant that an installation to an earlier edition of the regs 'should not' be considered as unsafe then it would say this, but it doesn't.

There are many reasons why the Regulations are up-dated.
New technologies, cheaper products, public perceptions regarding safety, and in at least one instance, so as to prevent inspectors condemning installations unnecessarily.

Another reason is because what was once safe is now considered unsafe.

A 'bare' conductor is un-insulated.

Now you're just being pedantic.

Is it a contradiction?
The inspection of an existing installation is referred to as a Periodic Inspection. Conducting such an inspection is known as conducting a PIR. Perhaps some time in the future, it will become known as conducting an EICR, but I doubt it. Then again people refer to PAT testing, and MOT tests, so who knows?

Well I'll leave you to your terminology, you can have that. Conducting an EICR/carrying out a PIR... Same thing in my book.

At the end of the day, if you want to go around condemning installations just because they are constructed to earlier editions of the Regulations, good luck to you. I hope it brings in lots of work.
Just don't be too surprised when someone calls you out on it.

I don't carry out inspections to bring in further work and the insinuation that this is the case is frankly ridiculous and potentially libellous. You have called me out on it and I have defended my position as is my right. If someone else wants to have a pop let them, I am more than comfortable with my stance on this particular issue. Whilst typing this I am also looking quite comfortably at 621.2 which states; "Periodic inspection comprising a detailed examination of the installation shall be carried out . . . to show that the requirements for disconnection times . . . are complied with to provide for the safety of persons and livestock".

That says to me that if disconnection times are not met then the safety of persons and livestock is not provided for, thus making the installation unsafe.

If disconnection times to current regulations cannot be met it is an automatic C2 in my book. End of. You wanna code it differently, that's your call.

 

[spark 68]

A question for Spin, or anyone else for that matter.

When I was getting trained for T&I it was suggested (not written) not to go back more than one or two editions as other problems arise, I will list just a few problems that would not be acceptable now in chronological order backwards obviously missing the 16th as that was the immediate prior edition.

15th ed VOELCBs discontinued in one of the late 15th amds before the 16th, no means of testing now, and deemed an obsolete method now.
14th ed no supp bonding required in bathrooms and no RCD requirement (unless TT)
13th ed, prior to 1966 no CPC requirement at lighting circuits and also the water pipe was permitted to be used as a means of earthing.
(I know there is a "workaround" for the no CPC at lighting problem)

Clearly even if these were permitted at the time they would result in C2s now and therefore a fail now, no ?

The guidance given by the ESC seems to bear out my lecturer's assertion that we should not go back more than an edition or two before some updating becomes necessary would you agree with that assertion or not ?

 

[Richard Burns]

An s-type won't be less than 200ms as a non-adjustable type-s is built with this figure as a time delay. A type-s can never be used to provide fault protection on a circuit where 0.2s is the maximum permissible disconnection time.

Just for information the specification for a time delayed RCD to BSEN61008 has maximum trip time of 150ms if there is a significant fault current (=>5Idn) so it would meet the disconnection times for a 0.2s (200ms) circuit on a "fault of negligible impedance".

 

[Engineer54]

Makes me wonder how any of us, (including all those millions of farm animals) ever managed to survive for all these years, what with all those higher disconnection times no RCD's etc, etc, etc!!
Strange how those previous disconnection times reigned as ''safe'' for literally 10's of years, as did Zs values without any of this 80% crap!!

So does all this imply that previous editions of BS7671 and beyond, weren't fit for purpose, and that installations that fully met with those previous editions, have somehow now become in some eye's ...bloody dangerous??? I doubt if you'll ever get the ITE to agree, or go along with those comments!! I wonder what they will say about the regulations you are all working to now in the future?? Do any of you think, that the installations you are installing now, are or could be called actually called dangerous in the future??

Oh and as far as i'm aware, a water pipe can still be used to this day as an installations sole means of earthing in the UK !! Provided it's derived from a private source/well and not from a public utility source!

Training, Experience, Commonsense (none of which seem to be held in any regard these days) should be able to distinguish what is relevant and what isn't, with regards to coding a particular non-compliance with the current 17th edition.

 

[D Skelton]

Just for information the specification for a time delayed RCD to BSEN61008 has maximum trip time of 150ms if there is a significant fault current (=>5Idn) so it would meet the disconnection times for a 0.2s (200ms) circuit on a "fault of negligible impedance".

Yes I know this, but what about on a fault of significant impedance?

 

[Richard Burns]

Not covered by BS7671

 

[D Skelton]

So does all this imply that previous editions of BS7671 and beyond, weren't fit for purpose, and that installations that fully met with those previous editions, have somehow now become in some eye's ...bloody dangerous???

Bloody dangerous is a bit strong isn't it?! lol

I doubt if you'll ever get the ITE to agree, or go along with those comments!! I wonder what they will say about the regulations you are all working to now in the future?? Do any of you think, that the installations you are installing now, are or could be called actually called dangerous in the future??

Potentially, and if this were the case I wouldn't be bitter about it, I'm happy to move with the times my learned friend

Notice I didn't use the words 'old' or 'stubborn' in my reply to you!

 

[D Skelton]

Not covered by BS7671

Conventionally, but it has always been my understanding that they are not excluded from BS7671, fault current is fault current at the end of the day. Happy to be corrected and told otherwise however. One thing though, how would you ascertain that the RCD would indeed trip within 150ms when we don't carry out 5x tests on anything higher than 30mA RCDs?

 

[stevethesparks]

If anyone is going to base whether an installation is safe according to the regs at the time of the installation, they would need to know the date of installation, how often are we blessed with this information? Once upon a time fused neutrals were considered a good idea. Its really up to the individual at the time to make an educated assessment of coding required, many amendments are for the better, some have taken a backward step IMHO. I like to base my decisions on worse case scenarios, can't go far wrong then.

 

[D Skelton]

If anyone is going to base whether an installation is safe according to the regs at the time of the installation, they would need to know the date of installation, how often are we blessed with this information? Once upon a time fused neutrals were considered a good idea. Its really up to the individual at the time to make an educated assessment of coding required, many amendments are for the better, some have taken a backward step IMHO. I like to base my decisions on worse case scenarios, can't go far wrong then.

Ahh, the voice of reason!

 

[Richard Burns]

Conventionally, but it has always been my understanding that they are not excluded from BS7671, fault current is fault current at the end of the day. Happy to be corrected and told otherwise however. One thing though, how would you ascertain that the RCD would indeed trip within 150ms when we don't carry out 5x tests on anything higher than 30mA RCDs?

If you have a fault where the resistance is between 7660Ω and 2300Ω then the RCD would (probably) not trip in <0.2 s however it is not required to according to BS7671. This would be a similar situation to MCBs that will not trip in the required time if the fault current is low; similarly how do you know and MCB will trip in the time stated, you do not know, you are relying on the manufacturers making them to standard. It is not (in standard situations) safe to test this compliance.