17th Edition - RCD requirements and concealled cables

[Pensdown]

I'm still struggling to understand how the "under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person" can be implemented in a domestic property.
How can it be under your supervision when you are not there?
.

To play devils advocate - the same must apply to most commercial properties? For example; some time ago we wired a 15 storey building which had one occupier and a full time facilities and maintenance team. The building is now let by floors and in some cases split floors.

So although the installation was "under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person" most of it is now under the supervision of an instructed person whose only skill is being able to survive on low wages. So although we would have meet 522.6.6, it could be argued that we were wrong.

I’m with BAS – surely it can’t be that hard to teach people in general not to drill or whack nails in one of the four electrical safe zones. After all, isn't that what it all boils down to

 

[equitum]

BAS, once again you are wrapped up in the world of hypothesis.

The NICEIC and from what I hear other scheme operators have made it abundantly clear (as far as they are concerned) that "under supervision of a skilled or suitably instructed person" does NOT apply to the vast majority of domestic situations and is clealy aimed at commercial/industrial installations

So no matter how articulate or logical your argument, what is the point of continuing this stance, as no sensible electrical installer would cling to your argument that an RCD may not required in most if not all domestic situations where cables are concealed <50mm not in earthed conduit etc etc.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The NICEIC and from what I hear other scheme operators have made it abundantly clear (as far as they are concerned) that "under supervision of a skilled or suitably instructed person" does NOT apply to the vast majority of domestic situations and is clealy aimed at commercial/industrial installations

I hope you'll forgive me if

a) I don't give a stuff what they think as it is of no relevance to my situation.

b) I don't give a stuff what they think because they don't write the regulations.

c) I don't give a stuff what they think because I'm happy to make my own decisions.

So no matter how articulate or logical your argument, what is the point of continuing this stance, as no sensible electrical installer would cling to your argument that an RCD may not required in most if not all domestic situations where cables are concealed <50mm not in earthed conduit etc etc.

That's up to them.

What I do is up to me. Go back and read this and pay particular attention to the 2nd word of my reply, as it sets the context for what comes after

 

[Spark123]

I'm still struggling to understand how the "under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person" can be implemented in a domestic property.
How can it be under your supervision when you are not there?
.

To play devils advocate - the same must apply to most commercial properties? For example; some time ago we wired a 15 storey building which had one occupier and a full time facilities and maintenance team. The building is now let by floors and in some cases split floors.

So although the installation was "under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person" most of it is now under the supervision of an instructed person whose only skill is being able to survive on low wages. So although we would have meet 522.6.6, it could be argued that we were wrong.

I’m with BAS – surely it can’t be that hard to teach people in general not to drill or whack nails in one of the four electrical safe zones. After all, isn't that what it all boils down to

At least with commercial you are falling under the umbrella of the EAWR, you have persons with legal duties imposed upon them.
There is a legal obligation to maintain the system to prevent danger, if this involves employing a skilled or instructed person then it needs to be done.
The competency of your skilled or instructed persons is another EAWR issue.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A responsible spark will always carry out installation work in as safe a manner as possible and accept that however good his install is, it could be subject to abuse.

It's always been possible to install a greater level of RCD protection than the minimum required by the regulations.

Therefore, he will ignore the b******* of safe zones

If they are b******* now they were just as much b******* under the 16th.

ignore the B******* of 50mm+ deep chases

If they are b******* now they were just as much b******* under the 16th.

ignore the B******* of instructed persons

If that's b******* now it was just as much b******* under the 16th.

ignore the B******* of earthed conduit

If that's b******* now it was just as much b******* under the 16th.

(are you really going to carry out a high current earth leakage test on every piece of earthed conduit).

(Only needed, surely, if the conduit forms the cpc?)

You install single phase rcbo's in a standard cu or fuseboard - end of.
The extra cost of rcbo's over mcb's (say £150) for the average house is cheap in comparison with complying with nonsense of not installing them.

It's always been possible to install a greater level of RCD protection than the minimum required by the regulations, so are you saying that "responsible sparks" have always carried out installation work in as safe a manner as possible?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ebee]

BAS comments are never pointless.
Indeed they are extremely valid

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[JohnD]

... anyone ... want to comment.

RCBOs are great

 

[GaryMo]

... anyone ... want to comment.

An RCBO is an RCD

Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[matilda]

... anyone ... want to comment.

An RCBO is an RCD

Sorry, couldn't resist

Not only you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS's usual pointless response .

In what way was it pointless to observe that everything which you said was b******* (safe zones, deep chases, earthed conduit etc) must always have been b*******, because nothing has changed abut them - the zones are the same, the 50mm depth is the same, earthed conduit is the same? Was it pointless because it's not true, or pointless because you aren't prepared discuss any claims you make?

Was it pointless to observe that it's always been possible to install a greater level of RCD protection than the minimum required by the regulations? That is certainly true, at least since the invention of RCBOs it's been possible for people to use them on every circuit even if not mandated by the regulations.

So if your argument is that we have to use RCDs because that's the safest thing possible, have you always argued that they should always be used? Have you always thought that a spark who didn't use that level of protection was not a responsible one?

Is it pointless to expect you to explain your reasoning, and justify your assertions?

- anyone sensible want to comment

Can you explain why what I wrote above wasn't sensible?

 

[holmslaw]

..