IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: part p
Topic Summary: ammendment
Created On: 06 February 2013 08:34 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 06 February 2013 08:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



shrek

Posts: 130
Joined: 09 February 2008

So having read this and now seeing that a registered 3rd party can now issue a condition report for the work im wondering where this leaves the mess , so in my eyes the 3rd party can now put various lims in the test results and also will have no idea if cables were run in prescribed zones and so on , does the goverment really believe this is going to improve safety ? never seen such a load of rubbish in all my life and can someone tell me the procedures that other european countries use if you know , well done UK yet another mess youve made of the electrical industry!!! rant over
 06 February 2013 08:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 884
Joined: 04 November 2004

I believe the installer still needs to issue an EIC or MWIC.

And 3rd party certifiers need to be registered with an approved scheme.

Regards
 06 February 2013 10:41 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



shrek

Posts: 130
Joined: 09 February 2008

thats not how i read it it says as follows
"an installer who is not a registered compotent person may use a registered third party to certify notifiable electrical installation work as an alternative to using building control body" i would say if they are not compotent they will have no idea on testing so the third party will issue eicr. section 3 sub section 3.6
 06 February 2013 11:16 AM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 10971
Joined: 13 August 2003

It says they're not registered (with a competent persons scheme), not not competent at all.

If someone's not competent to do the work, they shouldn't be doing it...

- Andy.
 06 February 2013 11:20 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



shrek

Posts: 130
Joined: 09 February 2008

so the way to save lads money is get 1 person to sign up on a scheme, split the cost between a few self employed lads and put them through one firm, well thats the way i would do it save everyone joining
 06 February 2013 11:21 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 884
Joined: 04 November 2004

Sorry having read it again it does suggest the third parties EICR is all that's required. It does state the installer most employ the third party before carrying out the work .

In my mind to ensure compliance with BS7671 you still need a designer, installer, inspector and an EIC.

What happens on non-notifible jobs when MWEIC are still required to comply with BS7671.

Regards
 06 February 2013 11:30 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



shrek

Posts: 130
Joined: 09 February 2008

who will issue an EIC if its a third party testing they can and will only issue a EICR the house owner wont recieve a EIC so building control are now happy to recieve a EICR for notifiable work
 06 February 2013 11:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 884
Joined: 04 November 2004

Originally posted by: AJJewsbury

It says they're not registered (with a competent persons scheme), not not competent at all.



If someone's not competent to do the work, they shouldn't be doing it...



- Andy.


I agree Andy, we need to follow the gas industry to sort this out.

Regards
 06 February 2013 11:40 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 884
Joined: 04 November 2004

Originally posted by: shrek

who will issue an EIC if its a third party testing they can and will only issue a EICR the house owner wont recieve a EIC so building control are now happy to recieve a EICR for notifiable work



Silly me, I thought the idea was that an competent electrician could design, install, I&T and certify then get a scheme member to check it and issue the EICR via their scheme provider enabling the BCCC to be issued.

Regards
 06 February 2013 11:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18929
Joined: 23 March 2004

I agree Andy, we need to follow the gas industry to sort this out



We most certainly don't - if this gets into the hands of a single controlling entity, you guys will need personal registration for so many bits of a system that you'll spend most of your time on refresher and competency courses. You can see it know - you'll need one ticket for typical OSG systems, a further one to go beyond that, another one if you want to put in the fire alarm, another for security, possibly one for design of non standard circuits - you can see seperate tickets for a variety of special locations. Don't tell me that won't happen, I've heard it being discussed - seriously.

What we do is nothing like gas - so be very careful what you wish for.

An example of it here:

and also will have no idea if cables were run in prescribed zones and so on , does the goverment really believe this is going to improve safety ?


We now fit RCD protection to every buried circuit in a domestic dwelling - from a safety perspective, in the real world, how many more people are going to die if a cable is out of zone anyway - given that virtually no one dies from this aspect. And yes, I know what the regs actually say.

Don't go there chaps - you will lose whatever credibility you have left.

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 06 February 2013 12:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 884
Joined: 04 November 2004

OMS

I'm sure your right about being careful for what you wish for, I can't start to imagine what the individual registration can of worms would look like.

The gas safe registered guys I know moan about the frequency of the re-assessments and the costs; but they're all very busy.

Has part p improved electrical safety that wouldn't have occurred anyway with the block introduction of RCD's throughout?

Regards
 06 February 2013 12:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18929
Joined: 23 March 2004

I think it has in terms of how domestic installers now think about what they do - and for sure testing is now much more prevalent than it used to be in this sector - and I suspect there is a little more awareness by consumers of what's needed in houses

In my opinion, we now need to produce more prescriptive set of requirements for domestic installations (ie a basic re-hash of say the OSG to form a subsidiary part of BS 7671 - basically a rule book for DI's.

Would RCD's have achieved the same effect ? - for sure, there's a whole industry out there now, just chucking stuff in and relying on the RCD to be a get out of jail card - I don't see smouldering hulks and bodies in the street so it must be working OK.

As I might have mentioned, Part P was not really an outcome of safety and risk management - it was simply about regulating the last bit of construction that didn't fall under other overview process. It was intened to provide the backstop to those who couldn't or wouldn't register with an approval body - which originated in a climate of thousands of industrial sparks being let loose on the domestic market and the privatisation of the supply industry - basically, no one was looking at what domestic electricals were doing.

Did two jags get it fundamentally wrong - yes, in my opinion - there were far easier ways to deal with this. Did the industry sector as a whole have a orgy of self agrandisement - yes - but that was obvious to anyone looking at it - it isn't now or was it ever Rocket Science - see my opinion of a seperate rule book. Is the current change going in the right direction - yes in my opinion, but not far enough and not fast enough.

We have two ways to go - either continue to deregulate and require better competancy assessment or regulate i tto death and drive the whole problem back underground into the hands of white man van doing just what he pleases whilst the rest of you go through a whole series of totally meaningless hoops every year.

Solution - just put 30mA RCD's everywhere and focus on more important isues like safe water temperatures in domestic dwellings and similar. A TMV will have far more intrinsic value than an RCD in most assessments. Lets get over the RCD issue and crack on

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 06 February 2013 01:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Richard64

Posts: 231
Joined: 15 October 2009

I seriously think that, in the future, we'll have just 'Pass/Fail' meters, especially for the Domestic market.
How many people who test, actually know the significance of Zs readings. And do they matter. Unless the property is a mansion, generally the readings are well in anyway.
 06 February 2013 01:17 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 10971
Joined: 13 August 2003

In my opinion, we now need to produce more prescriptive set of requirements for domestic installations (ie a basic re-hash of say the OSG to form a subsidiary part of BS 7671 - basically a rule book for DI's.

I'm a bit uneasy about that approach, on two counts..

The OSG as it stands is inadequate for many domestics - it doesn't cover submains for example, so even the garage with its own CU would be a problem. I suspect the reason boils down to the problem that Zs, v.d. etc have to be 'shared' between the submain and final circuits, so suddenly you can't have a simple table of 'maximum circuit lengths', but have to start calculating - which undermines half the basis for the OSG. (OK you could have some arbitrary limits on submains and so tables for those and more tables for submain supplied final circuits, but you'd rapidly get into a silly situations with the arbitrary limits producing uneconomic results or an unworkable number of tables for a multitude of situations). I suspect there'd be similar limitations to any simple "rule book" you could write.

It would tend to 'bottle up' domestic electricians - if brought up/educated just to use this simple "rule book", then there's no natural path to doing other things; moving onto commercial/industrial, or even new technology within domestic, would be a complete change rather than a natural progression.

- Andy.
 06 February 2013 01:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18929
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: AJJewsbury

In my opinion, we now need to produce more prescriptive set of requirements for domestic installations (ie a basic re-hash of say the OSG to form a subsidiary part of BS 7671 - basically a rule book for DI's.


I'm a bit uneasy about that approach, on two counts..

The OSG as it stands is inadequate for many domestics - it doesn't cover submains for example, so even the garage with its own CU would be a problem. I suspect the reason boils down to the problem that Zs, v.d. etc have to be 'shared' between the submain and final circuits, so suddenly you can't have a simple table of 'maximum circuit lengths', but have to start calculating - which undermines half the basis for the OSG. (OK you could have some arbitrary limits on submains and so tables for those and more tables for submain supplied final circuits, but you'd rapidly get into a silly situations with the arbitrary limits producing uneconomic results or an unworkable number of tables for a multitude of situations). I suspect there'd be similar limitations to any simple "rule book" you could write.

we could overcome all of that with two simple statements revolving around minimum size of submain and maximum CPD size coupled with a simple Zs test at the end. Mandate TT for sheds if we have to.


It would tend to 'bottle up' domestic electricians - if brought up/educated just to use this simple "rule book", then there's no natural path to doing other things; moving onto commercial/industrial, or even new technology within domestic, would be a complete change rather than a natural progression.

Aren't Domestic Installers bottled up and divorced from electricians anyway Andy (as in what scope they have rather than thier individual competence).

We already have a two tier system - I'm just suggesting we take that to a logical progression. Nothing stopping anybody being an approved contractor as well as a DI - there are many on here as it stands.



- Andy.


Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 06 February 2013 01:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18929
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: Richard64

I seriously think that, in the future, we'll have just 'Pass/Fail' meters, especially for the Domestic market.

How many people who test, actually know the significance of Zs readings. And do they matter. Unless the property is a mansion, generally the readings are well in anyway.


Exactly

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 06 February 2013 02:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 884
Joined: 04 November 2004

Imagine if when you were an apprentice and you weren't interested in why we wire it like this or what does that reading mean. You and many others wouldn't have become engineers if you just kept pressing the button. I imagine it would make it easier for the teachers though and maybe thats what the government wants dumbing down again and un-skilled operatives for a workforce. As a country we should be striving to lift educational standards not lowering them.

It's just economics really isn't it? NIC/ECA merging, big consultancys using staff based in the east, mayjor M&E firms wanting to break away form the JIB and so on.

Regards
 06 February 2013 02:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18929
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: Parsley

Imagine if when you were an apprentice and you weren't interested in why we wire it like this or what does that reading mean. You and many others wouldn't have become engineers if you just kept pressing the button.

True - but many did just that, became good installers and have made a good living from that. I wasn't suggesting nobody undertsands the numbers, just that many don't need to by choice.


I imagine it would make it easier for the teachers though and maybe thats what the government wants dumbing down again and un-skilled operatives for a workforce.

Not so much government - more what the sector wants based on what clients want.

As a country we should be striving to lift educational standards not lowering them.

Different thing - we need both highly skilled, technically minded and very competent electricians and we need installers - the ratio of the electricians to installers is what's really the crux of the debate.

With my secondary school qualifications, I chose to leave school and do an apprenticeship - with less than half my secondary school qualifications, I would now be actively encouraged to go to University to meet so called targets - which reduces the quality of those going into the craft side of the business - we are sending the wrong people to university and robbing the craft sectors of potentially highly skilled people as part of that process - so we are currently working very hard at driving down educational standards

Consider the bright kid from the tough estate - until fairly recently, there was almost nowhere they couldn't get to in terms of jobs, career etc - today, if you don't have the right parental resources you are doomed by age 10 - no matter how bright you are - fact. Something gone very wrong don't you think ?


It's just economics really isn't it? NIC/ECA merging, big consultancys using staff based in the east, mayjor M&E firms wanting to break away form the JIB and so on.

Market forces essentially - as we've seen fees go down by 50% in some cases, then of course we need to find cheaper ways to deliver the same quality (not that we worry about the client, only our risk - if they want to appoint thier technical advisors with the practices of the baazar, then they get what they deserve) - and hence we have more design undertaken globally, particularly India.

It's a sad fact that if I have more than 3 weeks worth of design for a team in UK, it's cheaper not to use them and for me to fly over to India and manage the team out there. What they don't do well is feasibility and optioneering - once you are into detailed design calcs, 3D CAD, BIM etc etc, then no problems - cheap and high quality



Regards


Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 06 February 2013 02:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Richard64

Posts: 231
Joined: 15 October 2009

Originally posted by: Parsley

Imagine if when you were an apprentice and you weren't interested in why we wire it like this or what does that reading mean. You and many others wouldn't have become engineers if you just kept pressing the button. I imagine it would make it easier for the teachers though and maybe thats what the government wants dumbing down again and un-skilled operatives for a workforce. As a country we should be striving to lift educational standards not lowering them.



It's just economics really isn't it? NIC/ECA merging, big consultancys using staff based in the east, mayjor M&E firms wanting to break away form the JIB and so on.



Regards


I completely agree. And I feel that there is a need for registration.
But it's horses for courses. I know some amazingly good Domestic Installers. But they're not Electricians. And that's not a problem. I agree with Oms when he says that registration will involve different levels. But I disagree that, that will be a bad thing. Let people do what they're good at.
All testing does, is prove that an installation is safe and works correctly. Who cares if the tripping time for a 30mA RCD is 18.2 or 25.7.
What difference does it make if the Zs for a Cooker circuit is 0.09 or 0.12
Don't misunderstand me. I make a bit of a living from testing. And I'm quite geeky in understanding what it all means. But surely, it's better to have a basic test that installers can carry out. Rather that, than leave work untested, because very good DIs don't feel confident with the requirements.
 06 February 2013 04:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 884
Joined: 04 November 2004

Sorry I think I'm feeling a little disillusioned today.

OMS, I have a 7 year old son who's extremely bright and I totally get what you mean about parental resources.

Regards
Statistics

See Also:



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