Blimey, wasn't this a diy job?

[scousespark]

So now you have sat through the full day, or have you seen a site assessment where the purpose is for the electrician to confirm that he/she has the practical skills to back up the theory?

No, but I've talked to many electricians who have been through such assessments, and therefore have a fair idea of how they are (I would say satisfactorily) assessed in relation to their practical skills whilst being observed.

Kind Regards, John.

I would be really interested to know what your job is. You frequently refer to the number of electricians you have seen working close hand.
I'm confused, as your posts have suggested you don't think the assessment is good enough, but this post says you think it satisfactory.

I'm an AC, so can't comment on the DI assessment. In my case the assessor checks my qualifications. By the time we get to a site, he has a good idea if I know my stuff. I assume (may be in error) that the DI assessment is similar.

I am not saying that the system is perfect.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have never said there is nothing we can do to improve things, nor that other fileds have practices which would do so. My argument with JohnW is that he hasn't asked what assessment takes place. Surely it just as arrogant to determine he knows best.

Yes, but my post was a reply to this:

Ah ha yet another armchair electrician on here who doesn't have the first clue what actually happens in the real world, but it doesn't stop him commenting on a subject he knows absoloutly nothing about.

 

[JohnW2]

You're undermining my attempts to minimise my time-committment to this forum, but it seems only fair to try to deal with some of the loose ends of ongoing threads.

I would be really interested to know what your job is.

Absolutely nothing to do with electricity or electricians.

You frequently refer to the number of electricians you have seen working close hand.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from.

I'm confused, as your posts have suggested you don't think the assessment is good enough, but this post says you think it satisfactory.

I don't think I've ever suggested that scheme-operators' assessments (some of the other 'qualifications' of 'electricians' are probably a different matter) are unsatisfactory as a means of assessing what an electrician has the knowledge and skill to do whilst being formally assessed. What I've said is that it is not 'audit'. An extended Advanced Driving Test is not a bad assessment of how well one can drive when being formally assessed, but it's no guarantee of what a driver does when there's no examiner sitting next to him/her.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[scousespark]

You're undermining my attempts to minimise my time-committment to this forum, but it seems only fair to try to deal with some of the loose ends of ongoing threads.

I would be really interested to know what your job is.

Absolutely nothing to do with electricity or electricians.

You frequently refer to the number of electricians you have seen working close hand.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from.

I'm confused, as your posts have suggested you don't think the assessment is good enough, but this post says you think it satisfactory.

I don't think I've ever suggested that scheme-operators' assessments (some of the other 'qualifications' of 'electricians' are probably a different matter) are unsatisfactory as a means of assessing what an electrician has the knowledge and skill to do whilst being formally assessed. What I've said is that it is not 'audit'. An extended Advanced Driving Test is not a bad assessment of how well one can drive when being formally assessed, but it's no guarantee of what a driver does when there's no examiner sitting next to him/her.

Kind Regards, John.

So your knowledge of the trade is based on observation, together with anecdotal evidence. I have absolutely no argument that this may easily expose you to the black sheep. However, I don't understand why you take this background and extrapolate it to say that, in your opinion, we should move to auditing all jobs.

Unless we have an installer, shadowed by a tester, there is no gurantee
that 3rd party testing would have found this dangerous socket.

I would agree the qualifications in the DI arena could do with tightening up. It is nonsense that the first year is approved with only a promise to do the regs and testing course. Everybody should have the quals before they are approved.

 

[Electrifying]

You may want to re-think this statement - 'Continuity of Ring Final Circuit conductors', (Figure of 8 ). if done correctly, confirms polarity of all conductors.

If you had N/E reversal at a socket outlet, you wouldn't get a reading at that 'outlet' during either of the cross-tests...........telling you that N and E are reversed.

Not all socket outlets are on ring final circuits !

Maybe so.......but the principle is the same.

If you want to confirm correct connection/polarity of ALL conductors on a socket radial by testing, (as oposed to inspection), just do the same tests.

i.e. Connect 'Line' and 'CPC' together at the CU and take R1 + R2 at each socket outlet. (You do this one anyway).

Then connect 'Line' and 'Neutral' together and test R1 + Rn at each outlet.

As with a ring final, the results confirm polarity:-

R1 + R2 - reading obtained.......R1 + Rn - reading obtained...........polarity/connection of conductors correct.

R1 + R2 - NO reading obtained.......R1 + Rn - reading obtained...........'Line' / 'Neutral' reversal.

R1 + R2 - reading obtained.......R1 + Rn - NO reading obtained...........'Line' / 'CPC' reversal.

R1 + R2 - NO reading obtained.......R1 + Rn - NO reading obtained...........All conductors rotated OR 'Neutral' / 'CPC' reversal.

So it can be done by testing.......can I have a 'Thanks' as well, please John?

 

[RF Lighting]

Or just long lead it if you're that bothered.

Even the most simple of tests could have prevented this. My tester won't proceed with a Zs test on a RP supply.

 

[Electrifying]

Or just long lead it if you're that bothered.

Even the most simple of tests could have prevented this. My tester won't proceed with a Zs test on a RP supply.

???

 

[RF Lighting]

Long lead will confirm polarity of each conductor at every point on a ring or radial

 

[JohnW2]

So it can be done by testing.......can I have a 'Thanks' as well, please John?

Yes, it can/could be done on a radial circuit - either by your adaptation of the ring final method or with a long lead - but are they 'expected' tests which would normally be done?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[RF Lighting]

No it is not part of the standard sequence of tests.

 

[JohnW2]

No it is not part of the standard sequence of tests.

Yes, I know that - as I hope you realised, my question was rhetorical

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

Whoops seems my rhetoric detection is malfunctioning this evening

 

[JohnW2]

Whoops seems my rhetoric detection is malfunctioning this evening

The clue might have been in my emboldening of 'can/could'.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

So it can be done by testing.......can I have a 'Thanks' as well, please John?

Yes, it can/could be done on a radial circuit - either by your adaptation of the ring final method or with a long lead - but are they 'expected' tests which would normally be done?

Kind Regards, John.

I would have to answer your rhetorical question, if it's all the same to you.

Yes, it is an 'expected' test and should normally be done.

I'll give you a clue........it's the 4th test on most guidance lists and goes by the name of 'polarity'.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us how you would confirm 'polarity' on a 'radial' socket circuit, by testing, during 'initial verification' - without using the method I described or a wander lead??

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, it is an 'expected' test and should normally be done. I'll give you a clue........it's the 4th test on most guidance lists and goes by the name of 'polarity'. Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us how you would confirm 'polarity' on a 'radial' socket circuit, by testing, during 'initial verification' - without using the method I described or a wander lead??

I think a problem here is that guidance, and 'guidance lists', seem to be thinking of 'polarity' in a somewhat restricted sense. In relation to pre-energisation 'polarity' testing, 2.7.11 of GN3 says:

"For radial circuits, the (R1+R2) measurements, made as in test method 1 (Section 2.7.5), should be made at each point"

If one followed that guidance, one would, indeed, pick up L-N reversals and even N-E reversals, but a circuit with an L-E reversal, such as the fatal one we've been discussing in this thread would, presumably pass such a test with flying colours - after all (R2+R1) is the same as (R1+R2).

Kind Regards, John.