As too have MEM....Not generally stocked in the wholesalers though.
17th Edition - RCD requirements and concealled cables
- Thread starter Spark123
- Start date
Sponsored Links
It would be good to know what's in the final version.
The DPC said "A person adequately advised or supervised by skilled persons to enable him/her to avoid dangers which electricity may create".
This is identical to what the 16th says, so the chances are it's still unchanged.
If it's materially different my whole argument might unravel..
A work colleague is a member of the IET, so I plan to ask him to order it for me - only £52 then....
Sponsored Links
.
.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...GGLG:en&q="instructed+person"+site:theiet.org
.
.
.
And here's an interesting thing - 522.6.6 & 7 do not appear to apply only to LV cables....
.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...GGLG:en&q="instructed+person"+site:theiet.org
.
.
.
And here's an interesting thing - 522.6.6 & 7 do not appear to apply only to LV cables....
So a normal householder can become an "instructed person" - who's duty it is to ensure the mechanisms are in place for the installation to be supervised throughout its lifetime?
Yeah, the all circuits in a bathroom on RCD thing doesn't distinguish between LV and SELV etc either.
I think this is a rather hypothetical argument. Personally would prefer to "play safe" and provide RCBO's or whatever in future "17th" installs.
No. Because the regs are concerned with the safety of persons using the installation today, tomorrow, next week, next year, in ten years, in forty... In fact, most commercial installations will struggle to provide sound examples of instructed persons.
"Instructed person. A person adequately advised or supervised by skilled persons to enable him/her to avoid dangers which electricity may create."
(Maybe, as the installing spark, you'd be able to convince the householder to enter into a maintenance/supervision contract for the life of the installation? This could include daily visits to make sure the instructed person isn't abusing his position and letting decorators, builders, kitchen fitters, chippies, etc work, willy-nilly without questioning their competent, skilled or instructed status?)
Yes.
As soon as the door closes on your newly finished work, with it's EIC not yet dog-eared and coffee stained the control of the installation slips away from you.
Anybody can do anything they like to it, and it is not your responsibility to stop them.
Whoever does things should ensure that they comply with the Wiring Regulations, and that includes giving adequate information to their successors concerning where cables are buried. If they don't then by their actions they have invalidated the compliant status of the installation, just as if by their actions they changed a circuit and made it non-compliant, or fitted an inappropriate appliance in a special location etc.
So what's the difference?
I'm still waiting for anyone to convincingly show that in the context of 522.6.6 & 7, it is so difficult for an ordinary person to become adequately advised about the locations of concealed cables.
Also, if you want to speculate on intent, speculate on this:
The definitions now include Ordinary Person. If the intent was that Instructed Person status could not be regarded as realistic, why did they not word the regulation "where the installation is intended to be under the supervision of an ordinary person.." rather than "where the installation is not intended to be under the supervision of a skilled or instructed person.."?
Also, the situation I outlined earlier of a skilled person wiring his own house and having absolutely no intention of giving supervision to anybody else is a real possibility.
Perhaps you should do that anyway, otherwise how can you be sure they've not done something that invalidates the EIC you wrote?
Another analogy. You know that if a householder does not test his RCD(s) regularly there is a high chance that they won't work when needed. You know that they have instructions telling people to check them regularly. You know that people ignore those instructions.
Yet you carry on installing them, and signing bits of paper to say that you've complied with the regulations about protecting circuits with RCDs even though you know that eventually those circuits won't be protected.
So what's the difference?
Think what you want, bas. If you are so bothered as to reply at 0231 to a matter beyond your influence you clearly have an axe to grind. Wy not write to the committee and tell them they're wrong? (Their names are listed on page 8.)
No - no axe to grind - just challenging peoples' thinking, and trying to get them to step back and say to themselves "why do I think that?".
The only reason I was up at that time was because I'd been working, due to an unfortunate combination of deadlines, disruption in the day because the builders are in, and an evening class.
As for wrong - it's too late for comments on the 17th, but I do think this particular reg is probably unnecessary (just how many people are hurt by drilling into cables in the existing accepted zones?) and pointless (how long will it be before someone with a drill can rely on it to keep him safe?). The draft 522.6.7 did need changing, as it gave carte-blanche to the installation of cables absolutely anywhere as long as they were on an RCD. That may have meant they were safe, apart from the effects of a PN fault, but ignored the fact that a damaged cable needs repairs which could be very disruptive, and which could be done by an unskilled person in a way which created a danger. The draft 522.6.7 was barmy.
I don't think the revised regs were the right way to go, but this discussion isn't about that, and even if I were to write to the committee there isn't anything I could say they were wrong about in that respect, as all I'm doing is saying look at what the regulations say about an instructed person, and think logically about how documenting where there are cables and expecting people to take notice and not lose or dispose of the information is any different from expecting them to take notice of, and not dispose of, circuit identification labels, RCD testing instructions etc.
And the more I think of it, the more I keep thinking of examples where people are relied upon to be "adequately advised", and if they are not then they could die - the safe operation of gas appliances for example.
So the more I think of it, the more I wonder what is so outrageous about saying that it is reasonable to tell someone "there are cables buried here - don't drill into them".
The only reason I was up at that time was because I'd been working, due to an unfortunate combination of deadlines, disruption in the day because the builders are in, and an evening class.
As for wrong - it's too late for comments on the 17th, but I do think this particular reg is probably unnecessary (just how many people are hurt by drilling into cables in the existing accepted zones?) and pointless (how long will it be before someone with a drill can rely on it to keep him safe?). The draft 522.6.7 did need changing, as it gave carte-blanche to the installation of cables absolutely anywhere as long as they were on an RCD. That may have meant they were safe, apart from the effects of a PN fault, but ignored the fact that a damaged cable needs repairs which could be very disruptive, and which could be done by an unskilled person in a way which created a danger. The draft 522.6.7 was barmy.
I don't think the revised regs were the right way to go, but this discussion isn't about that, and even if I were to write to the committee there isn't anything I could say they were wrong about in that respect, as all I'm doing is saying look at what the regulations say about an instructed person, and think logically about how documenting where there are cables and expecting people to take notice and not lose or dispose of the information is any different from expecting them to take notice of, and not dispose of, circuit identification labels, RCD testing instructions etc.
And the more I think of it, the more I keep thinking of examples where people are relied upon to be "adequately advised", and if they are not then they could die - the safe operation of gas appliances for example.
So the more I think of it, the more I wonder what is so outrageous about saying that it is reasonable to tell someone "there are cables buried here - don't drill into them".
What if the "instructed person" was out to work and someone else doing the drilling
It might not be.
But IMO there is not a shred of doubt that any tradesman who ever drills into walls is incompetent and professionally negligent if he does not:
1) Learn where there might be cables.
2) Takes steps to confirm the absence of cables before drilling.
But IMO there is not a shred of doubt that any tradesman who ever drills into walls is incompetent and professionally negligent if he does not:
1) Learn where there might be cables.
2) Takes steps to confirm the absence of cables before drilling.
This is a perfect example of not thinking outside of the briaf. It could be argued that whilst the RCD will protect against electrical problems, it is far more likely that a nuisance trip could put a vulnerable person shut in the bathroom with no light. Unfortunately modern safety treats every one as an idiot and causes other problems on the way. I presume that this is another thing invented by the manufacturers to sell more goods, what next, emergency lighting in all rooms?
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
