IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Periodic Inspection
Topic Summary: Im just not quick enough
Created On: 16 June 2009 08:10 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 16 June 2009 10:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for GeoffBlackwell.
GeoffBlackwell

Posts: 3517
Joined: 18 January 2003

Read section 621 & GN 3.

Just think about what it is you are supposed to be doing. It is not an exercise in filling in test sheets.

Tell me - when you do your 30 circuits how much time do you spend assessing the installation - rather than just testing. As guide inspection should be around 70% of the process so I bet you are often late home.

What is the value of testing - does it reveal all?

The reason that sampling is applied is because it provides a reasonable view of the installation at a cost that might just be affordable to the client. 100% testing is not 10 times better than 10% testing - if you can't see that you need to look for another job.

Regards

Geoff Blackwell
 16 June 2009 10:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for dg66.
dg66

Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 January 2008

£50,000 for 20 a day and you got a deal

-------------------------
Regards

Dave(not Cockburn)
 16 June 2009 10:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phillipmccavity

Posts: 170
Joined: 09 June 2009

Well said, visual inspections are key.
 16 June 2009 10:26 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5982
Joined: 18 January 2003

Where can I post a photo of the dead Rat I now have in my van along with the cables that it chewed that NONEof us would have found whilst carrying out a PIR.

Otherwise PM me some email addresses and I will send it to you.

Andy
 16 June 2009 10:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for GeoffBlackwell.
GeoffBlackwell

Posts: 3517
Joined: 18 January 2003

Phoenix151

I issue a report that is based on the BS 7671 model - but it is not identical to it.

Any aspect of a circuit that is not tested is marked N/T. Note that IR tests, as required by BS 7671, are whole board tests they are not single circuit tests - read 612.3.2 and I mean actually read it, don't assume you know what it says.

Sample rates and inspection and testing methods are agreed in writing (I have a standard text that the client must accept or specifically agree an alteration) before I start work.

Regards

Geoff Blackwell
 16 June 2009 10:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



perspicacious

Posts: 7221
Joined: 18 April 2006

"Otherwise PM me some email addresses and I will send it to you." Andy

Perhaps you would get some replies Andy if you removed your "disable" PM facility?

Regards

BOD
 16 June 2009 10:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for GeoffBlackwell.
GeoffBlackwell

Posts: 3517
Joined: 18 January 2003

Originally posted by: sparkingchip

Where can I post a photo of the dead Rat I now have in my van along with the cables that it chewed that NONEof us would have found whilst carrying out a PIR.

Otherwise PM me some email addresses and I will send it to you.

Andy


Did it have a smile on its face .

Why would we not have found it - always assuming we were not so busy testing circuits we didn't have time to look for it.

Regards

Geoff Blackwell
 16 June 2009 10:34 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for ebee.
ebee

Posts: 5685
Joined: 02 December 2004

At the "end of the day " (sorry for that much overused phrase) it`s about a realistic assessment of the true state of the installation whichever way you strive to achieve it.


I`ve seen an endless number meaningless PIRs and a few good uns.

IMHO setting such targets only breeds poor PIRs although it is god business sense.

I have no business sense, I will never be rich, I might well be poor. Well poor in the £s sense but I can live with meself and look customers in the eye, have a drink and a laugh with them with a clear conscience.

From what the OP says I should be apaulled, actually I am not suprised at all.

OK question, would we all like to be driving vehicles tgat are MOT tested to the same standards as PIRs we often see?

Ohh Heck!

-------------------------
Regards,
Ebee (M I S P N)

Knotted cables cause Lumpy Lektrik
 16 June 2009 10:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for flashtestdummy.
flashtestdummy

Posts: 169
Joined: 22 February 2009

Originally posted by: GeoffBlackwell

Read section 621 & GN 3.



Just think about what it is you are supposed to be doing. It is not an exercise in filling in test sheets.



Tell me - when you do your 30 circuits how much time do you spend assessing the installation - rather than just testing. As guide inspection should be around 70% of the process so I bet you are often late home.



What is the value of testing - does it reveal all?



The reason that sampling is applied is because it provides a reasonable view of the installation at a cost that might just be affordable to the client. 100% testing is not 10 times better than 10% testing - if you can't see that you need to look for another job.



Regards



Geoff Blackwell


I appreciate you taking the time to reply but no need for insult.

Any jobs I be on are 100% PIR, and the client has specified no LIM'd circuits or untraced.

You say 100% testing is not ten times better than 10% testing. By carrying out a 100% test ALL of the installation is tested so how can it not be better? (and yes I do spend quite a bit of time on the inspection side - a lot more than the company would want me to)
 16 June 2009 10:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phillipmccavity

Posts: 170
Joined: 09 June 2009

Well said flashtestdummy, insults can unfortunately be common on here when people get together, to back you up I recall your OP saying 'Now as a moral issue I test properly, I would rather sleep easy knowing this than cut corners for a few extra shillings'.

Rise above the bullying insults friend. Keep your high standards, afterall the amount of people on here who say 'well I have to pay the bills' seem to think competence can be thrown out the window! You have clearly put standards before anything else, well done you.

Regards

Phil . .
 16 June 2009 10:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



alancapon

Posts: 5763
Joined: 27 December 2005

Originally posted by: Ricicle
Working in a live DB Adam, tut-tut


Everyone works in a live DB. Even if you have switched the DB off, you should still be treating it as live until you have removed the cover and proved all of its terminals dead with a suitable tester. One day, you may move the isolator to the "off" position and find that some or all of the switch contacts are still closed.


Regards,

Alan.
 16 June 2009 10:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for GeoffBlackwell.
GeoffBlackwell

Posts: 3517
Joined: 18 January 2003

flashtestdummy
That was not an insult it was advice.

You obviously work in a different environment to me. My latest job was won in a tender contest and the client has their own consultant. Everything has been agreed before work started. The contract value is in the tens of thousands and that is for a 25% sample.

You over estimate, and seem to misunderstand, the value of testing. I asked you if a 100% test is 10 times better than 10% sample - if you think it is I cannot help you further.

Ask yourself why the IET support sampling in GN 3.

Given all of the inherent errors in testing, and the obvious statement that a test is only valid at the time of testing, how can you place such a high value on it. As I said, the split should be around 70% inspection and 30% testing.

Regards

Geoff Blackwell
 16 June 2009 10:55 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phillipmccavity

Posts: 170
Joined: 09 June 2009

Geoff is this an assumption or insult 'You over estimate, and seem to misunderstand, the value of testing'.
 16 June 2009 11:13 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5982
Joined: 18 January 2003

The rat chewed the Meter tails inside the wall between the meter and the main switch in the fuseboard, I found it when I pulled the backboard forward, the rat is mummified, nice photo no testing would have found it and it was not visible without dismantling, just a nasty trap hidden for the unwary.I only pulled it out last week at Pirton, it is new to the black museum gathering in the van.

Andy Betteridge
 16 June 2009 11:14 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5982
Joined: 18 January 2003

I did not realise PM's were blocked, just thought I am Billy no mates, you can make the insults directly now.

Andy.
 16 June 2009 11:17 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5982
Joined: 18 January 2003

On a number of ocassions I have been told "it's 95% inspection and 5% testing" also " It really inspecting with just a little testing at the end".

which just about sums it up.

Andy
 16 June 2009 11:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



John Peckham

Posts: 7423
Joined: 23 April 2005

I think a good place to start would be to read Chapter 62 of BS7671 and then 634.1 and 634.2.

IEE GN3 expands on the above.

Having a working knowledge of BS7671:2008 is essential as how on earth can you report on departures from the Regulations if you do not know them in the first place.

I cannot agree with Geoff on the value of testing however the use of my MK1 eyeball takes precedance. I teach my students to treat the exercise like bomb disposal. Be methodical and cautious as the installation may have potentialy fatal hazards. A lot of people see the hazards of touching live parts but are oblivious to the more serious hazard of shorting low impedance supplies.

I tend to use my biro or voltstick rather than my finger for proding or probing. Inspection may detect serious and/or mutiple defects that make the testing an academic exercise. The blokes who work for me have requested a "TF" box for ticking to be added to my survey sheets for installations where testing is a pointless exercise.

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/
 16 June 2009 11:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



micjamesq

Posts: 777
Joined: 23 January 2009

I tend to use my biro

I hope that is the GN38 BS EN 61010-031 approved biro John

Regards

-------------------------
E & OE
 17 June 2009 12:03 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



John Peckham

Posts: 7423
Joined: 23 April 2005

Nah! They are cheap plastic ones purchsed from Tescos in packs.

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/
 17 June 2009 05:06 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for GeoffBlackwell.
GeoffBlackwell

Posts: 3517
Joined: 18 January 2003

The famous Mr Peckham said:
I cannot agree with Geoff on the value of testing however the use of my MK1 eyeball takes precedance.


Yes well that is not surprising - given that I have not yet stated what I believe the value of testing to be - is it .

However, I will put the same question (expanded to make sure you understand) to you - when assessing whether an 'in service' electrical installation is in a suitable condition for continued service - do you think that testing 100% of circuits using 100% of the available tests will produce a report that is 10 times better than one that relies on a test sample of 10% (taking account of all of the caveats in GN 3 concerning discovered faults etc.).

Regards

Geoff Blackwell
IET » Wiring and the regulations » Periodic Inspection

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.