Do Leccy's get fed up of ever-changing regulations?

[RF Lighting]

I'm not sure that 'disagree' is quite the right word. I accept your viewpoint, my main questions relating to whether the (undoubtedly finite, but I suspect extremely small) risk is large enough to warrant wide-ranging action (affecting every domestic installation in the UK) and whether it is reasonable to 'single out' CUs in this context - what about "badly manufactured or badly installed" shower isolators, for example?

You say that you have attended several consumer unit fires. Did most/all of them involve 'poor quality unbranded and badly manufactured' CUs - and, indeed, was it your opinion that the fires started because they were 'poor quality unbranded and badly manufactured' CUs' (rather than because they were 'poorly installed and/or maintained')?

Kind Regards, John

My opinion as I’ve mentioned, the move to plastic consumer units was purely as a cost saving measure and they have never been as good as metal units.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to single out CUs. When they go on fire they really go on fire, much worse than any other part of an electrical installation could or would.

Shower isolators burn out all the time but they are made of urea formaldehyde so are pretty fire resistant as it is, and as a result the burning is limited to the terminal only and does not spread beyond the enclosure.

I’m not sure why the fire starts really matters. The fact is in the real world sometimes they do.

I think that the IET saying we’ve identified a small risk that when it presents its self is pretty horrendous, so from this day forward we’d like you to change a small piece of you’re working practices to minimise this risk is entirely reasonable.

It’s like having airbags in my van. They cost more and the chances are I’ll never need them, but should the worst happen, I’ll be glad that whoever sets the safety standard made me have them.

 

[JohnW2]

My opinion as I’ve mentioned, the move to plastic consumer units was purely as a cost saving measure and they have never been as good as metal units.

I know that's your view, although I'm not sure that everyone would agree that they are not 'as good as metal ones'. As for cost, there is an almost endless list of things that have come to be manufacturable much more cheaply (sometimes dramatically so) due to technological advances and I don't think that 'cheapness' is, per se, a reason for 'knocking' the products.

Shower isolators burn out all the time but they are made of urea formaldehyde so are pretty fire resistant as it is

That's an important point. Most electrical accessories are made of urea-formaldehyde which, as you say, is pretty 'fire resistant' - which illustrates that 'non-combustible' does not necessarily mean 'metal'. I'm sure the manufacturers could (and probably would) have moved to adequately 'fire-resistant' non-metal materials for CUs, if only BS7671 had been explicit about what degree of 'fire resistance' was actually required, rather than just using the ridiculous term 'non-combustible'!

I think that the IET saying we’ve identified a small risk that when it presents its self is pretty horrendous, so from this day forward we’d like you to change a small piece of you’re working practices to minimise this risk is entirely reasonable.

Yes, I'm sure that's what they are saying. I suppose that whether or not one can agree depends at least some part in knowledge of the statistics which do not seem to be available. I'm sure that both you and I could think of other 'small risks' which have not (at least, not yet) caused them to introduce regulations affecting every domestic installation in the country.

It’s like having airbags in my van. They cost more and the chances are I’ll never need them, but should the worst happen, I’ll be glad that whoever sets the safety standard made me have them.

Sure, but things like that are always debatable, since they depend upon risk-benefit assessments - and it's certainly not the case that it is reasonable to take such steps 'just because one can', since the downsides may exceed the potential benefits. However, it becomes very difficult because such assessments ultimately require one to put a monetary price on a human life (or death) - yet the "one death is one death too many" view (regardless of what it would cost, in the widest sense, to prevent that one death) could result in ludicrous/impractical decisions.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Swwils]

I can't wait for mandatory AFDD and suddenly alot of installs aren't going to be able be signed off anymore if they keep tripping due to poor work!

 

[RF Lighting]

What makes you think a lot of the poor work is signed off now?

 

[chivers67]

I've got a Brown, Yellow & Blue book. It is a pain and more and more things to remember and learn and now I'm over 50 it gets more difficult. Definitely some major improvements over the last 20 years.

 

[JohnW2]

I've got a Brown, Yellow & Blue book. It is a pain and more and more things to remember and learn and now I'm over 50 it gets more difficult. Definitely some major improvements over the last 20 years.

As a matter of interest, do you consider all the changes over the last 20 years to be (a) improvements and (b) 'necessary'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[chivers67]

Some have been Necessary, some useful some very unnecessary but i'm not going to elaborate.

 

[JohnW2]

Some have been Necessary, some useful some very unnecessary but i'm not going to elaborate.

Sure, there's no point on again going over ground which has been done to death in the past.

However, I think it does illustrate the 'point' implicit in my question. Some of the changes in recent decades have represented considerable 'improvement', and hence arguably 'very necessary'. I don't know how old you are but, thinking back to my childhood, the domestic electrical installations of the late 50s and 60s can only really be described as 'frightening', in terms of what we would now consider to be 'common sense' safety standards.

However, as in so many walks of life, I really don't think that enough thought goes into deciding what is actually 'necessary' - resulting in many requirements which appear 'just because they can' (commonly due to technological advances), without enough (if any!) consideration of whether they really are addressing a significant 'need' (i.e. whether they are 'necessary'), particularly in comparison with the 'cost' (in the widest sense) of implementing those requirements. There are a few recent examples of this which i could mention!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Swwils]

I predict a triple whammy.

Mandatory AFDD to prevent poor installs
Phase out of ring finals to help with the transition to the above
Overpriced test equipment for arc fault finding

 

[JohnW2]

I predict a triple whammy. .... Mandatory AFDD to prevent poor installs ... Phase out of ring finals to help with the transition to the above ... Overpriced test equipment for arc fault finding

That was, of course, one of the 'recent examples' I alluded to!

You may well be right and, in my opinion, an example of a requirement which they have introduced 'because they can' (as a result of technological advances), not (again, in my opinion) because there is any significant 'need' (certainly in domestic installs).

However, as said, that's all just the opinion of 'little me' - and 'who am I to know?'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

 

[JohnW2]

As you imply, some people just resist change, per se - but that is ridiculous (and even 'they' would probably not welcome the clock being turned back by 50 or 100 years, let alone more!).

However, beyond that, some change is 'for the good', some is 'for the bad' and a lot is of very questionable value, particularly when it has arisen 'because it can be done' (or even 'to create a market' - as below), rather than to address a real need. In deciding what is 'a real need', issues of prioritisation and cost-benefit are often not (in my opinion) given enough consideration.

In terms of some of the specifics mentioned, I may be wrong but I somewhat doubt that national or international bodies often go to industry and say "we need you to invent a device to protect against XYZ". Rather, I strongly suspect, when it becomes technologically possible, industry decides that it can create a new range of products which, if 'taken up', would create a massive and very lucrative market that had not previously existed ... but maybe I'm just too cynical .

Kind Regards, John

 

[Swwils]

Maybe they will skip this and introduce a full CU that can self test and then self certify.

All leccy will be is human element for the app!

 

[mattylad]

I know of some leccies that seem to love the regulations and collect them all.