EICR Faults

[SUNRAY]

In a previous job we checked our fire extinguishers annually in amongst our regular duties, We had some sort of % figure to randomly check each year (I'll say 20% for convenience but in reality I cannot recall). If any failed, IE were out of date, under weight, seal broken etc then we had to do another 20% with the same requirements. Every 10 years we had to discharge (say) 10%. Quantities and types of extinguisher varied considerably depenting on the size of the buildings. I always tried to start in locked rooms as they were often overlooked. My 'patch' moved around with duty rotations and usually covered one big building or four to ten remote buildings. Second week on a 'new patch' my job sheets included FE', I can clearly remember the fight I had to obtain the key for the standby generator outbuilding which was being guarded by one of the senior engineers. Once in there I found 3 extintiushers and instantly failed each of them for being out of date, so far out of date they had no date records and I'd never seen the types before. Even worse, one of them was behind the floor to ceiling boxes being stored there (I opened some to find domestic kitchen utensils, HiFi kit, bedding & towels). Moving round the building I failed all bar 3 nearest (entrance hall and 2 different in the kitchen). Back at base that afternoon I transferred my findings to the main register for the area to find only about ¼ had been checked for many years. A few days later it was a very similar situation in the second building. After that I had the task of checking every FE in the patch the main register was changed to pages with columns making it easy to photocopy to take a clear record to site and do the checks in sequence. I then had the job of fitting the new FE's when the big orders arrived.

Insanely the same record system had been kept by all of the patches in the region and at the stroke of a pen all were changed to the same new format and it cost the company a fortune.

 

[JohnW2]

In a previous job we checked our fire extinguishers annually in amongst our regular duties, We had some sort of % figure to randomly check each year (I'll say 20% for convenience but in reality I cannot recall). If any failed, IE were out of date, under weight, seal broken etc then we had to do another 20% with the same requirements. Every 10 years we had to discharge (say) 10%.

As a concept, that sounds like a sensible plan. I would imagine if the second 20% also showed defects, one probably would escalate even further, maybe just yet another 20% or, more likely to 100%.

Like Statistical Quality Control, Statistical Quality Audit is quite a sophisticated science. If one has reasonable numbers to deal with, one can estimate the probability of the total number of defective items in the entire system from the number observed in a relatively small sample.

Your mention of having to discharge some of the extinguishers every 10 years reminds me of the issue that can arise (in either Quality Control (QC) or Quality Audit (QA) when the only testing which can be done is destructive.....

My father was an aeronautical engineer and for quite some time was involved with QC of aircraft engine components. He explained to me that one of the reasons why some of these components were so expensive was that for some of the most safety-critical ones, they subjected a very high proportion (if I recall, 80% - 90%) of items coming off the 'production line' to destructive testing, and only if all in a batch tested satisfactorily were the remainder (10% - 20%) of the batch released for 'use'. That was based on a statistical estimation of the probability of any of the released items being defective, with a defined limit of what level of that probability (unfortunately never 'zero'!) would be regarded as 'acceptable'.

 

[SUNRAY]

As a concept, that sounds like a sensible plan. I would imagine if the second 20% also showed defects, one probably would escalate even further, maybe just yet another 20% or, more likely to 100%.

Like Statistical Quality Control, Statistical Quality Audit is quite a sophisticated science. If one has reasonable numbers to deal with, one can estimate the probability of the total number of defective items in the entire system from the number observed in a relatively small sample.

Your mention of having to discharge some of the extinguishers every 10 years reminds me of the issue that can arise (in either Quality Control (QC) or Quality Audit (QA) when the only testing which can be done is destructive.....

My father was an aeronautical engineer and for quite some time was involved with QC of aircraft engine components. He explained to me that one of the reasons why some of these components were so expensive was that for some of the most safety-critical ones, they subjected a very high proportion (if I recall, 80% - 90%) of items coming off the 'production line' to destructive testing, and only if all in a batch tested satisfactorily were the remainder (10% - 20%) of the batch released for 'use'. That was based on a statistical estimation of the probability of any of the released items being defective, with a defined limit of what level of that probability (unfortunately never 'zero'!) would be regarded as 'acceptable'.

Yes the 20% continued in stages to 100%.



I worked for a very short temp job in a place building flying drone targets and as some of their engines were 400cc the whole lot came under the regulations you describe. Mainly I picked component orders from their stores which involved adding the batch approval to the paper work which then gave the 'buy-in' value of the pick.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes the 20% continued in stages to 100%.samples had shown defects.

Fair enough, although it might well make sense to jump straight to 100% after a couple of 20%

I worked for a very short temp job in a place building flying drone targets and as some of their engines were 400cc the whole lot came under the regulations you describe. Mainly I picked component orders from their stores which involved adding the batch approval to the paper work which then gave the 'buy-in' value of the pick.

Indeed. Dad worked for Rolls-Royce, mainly on the forerunner of the famous RB211 series of engines and the development of the RB211 itself (he died, very young, a little before the latter went into commercial service) and the safety-critical components I heard most about, and which were generally subjected to the sort of 'highly destructive' testing regimes I described, were the turbine blades.

 

[ebee]

The famous RB211 engines as in Rolls Barnoldswick!
I have an association with that place with its (at the time) three factories

 

[SUNRAY]

Fair enough, although it might well make sense to jump straight to 100% after a couple of 20%

There was an enquiry as to why there was this sudden surge of failures in the region and need for replacement, the report highlighed my efforts at doing the work from a different angle and the resulting changes to documentation, I got an award for it, I think that was the set of luggage which we used for >20years.

Indeed. Dad worked for Rolls-Royce, mainly on the forerunner of the famous RB211 series of engines and the development of the RB211 itself (he died, very young, a little before the latter went into commercial service) and the safety-critical components I heard most about, and which were generally subjected to the sort of 'highly destructive' testing regimes I described, were the turbine blades.

I understand all of that.

 

[JohnW2]

The famous RB211 engines as in Rolls Barnoldswick!
I have an association with that place with its (at the time) three factories

He was based 'down south' and occasionally went up there but his primary 'commuting', when he did it, was to Derby.

 

[ebee]

even if one is "aiming for 100%" one really has to make a decision about what "100% I&T" actually means - in your statement above, I'm sure that you did not literally mean 100% - because that would involve lifting countless floorboards and taking a hammer and chisel (or equivalent) to many walls (and maybe spades, or worse,in the garden!)

Nope certainly not - you select an I & T regime as being non destructive, and not unduly intrusive to the fabric of the building, so chasing down walls and lifting of floorboards is not included.

Using the mark 1 eyeball initially and taking a good look around.
Deciding on further inspection by obtrusive means such as taking sockets/switches away from the wall and having a good look and testing for tightness.
Testing of each circuit unless pretty much impossible .
The %age of tests and obtrusive testing should be carefully determined, there is no fixed figure but I would err on the side of 10% not usually be enough whereas 25% might be, it depends what figure is likely to provide a reasonably accurate idea of an installation that you expect to have a dependable expectation that is a true picture.
in any case a minimum of two points per circuit plus , if a radial then the last one also.
That is providing that there is more than one point in a circuit.
And a determined attempt to not apply this to I & T to points that a high probability of regular testing but to concentrate more on points that you deem have a low probability of such.
Once you reach a not too good result or two or any unexpected surprises you increase that sample, probably by doubling the percentage initially and if more concerns reveal themselves then increase it exponentially towards 100% or near.
There are no absolute hard and fast rules to cover all scenarios but you need to be as convinced as possible to get a reasonably accurate picture.
That is the difficult bit actually and comes from a wealth of experience and an idea of significance testing.
Any "I never thought anyone would be likely to do that!" kind of thoughts should have been discarded years ago.
Always expect the worst is the best approach.
An expectation of "what ifs" is a good thing to keep in your armoury.
That`s why I don`t like doing EICRs (PIRs) because they can be time consuming and expensive, unless you just do a "drive by" instead (and I have seen plenty of those - Just meaningless rubbish worth throwing in the bin)

 

[SUNRAY]

double post

 

[SUNRAY]

Nope certainly not - you select an I & T regime as being non destructive, and not unduly intrusive to the fabric of the building, so chasing down walls and lifting of floorboards is not included.

Using the mark 1 eyeball initially and taking a good look around.
Deciding on further inspection by obtrusive means such as taking sockets/switches away from the wall and having a good look and testing for tightness.
Testing of each circuit unless pretty much impossible .
The %age of tests and obtrusive testing should be carefully determined, there is no fixed figure but I would err on the side of 10% not usually be enough whereas 25% might be, it depends what figure is likely to provide a reasonably accurate idea of an installation that you expect to have a dependable expectation that is a true picture.
in any case a minimum of two points per circuit plus , if a radial then the last one also.
That is providing that there is more than one point in a circuit.
And a determined attempt to not apply this to I & T to points that a high probability of regular testing but to concentrate more on points that you deem have a low probability of such.
Once you reach a not too good result or two or any unexpected surprises you increase that sample, probably by doubling the percentage initially and if more concerns reveal themselves then increase it exponentially towards 100% or near.
There are no absolute hard and fast rules to cover all scenarios but you need to be as convinced as possible to get a reasonably accurate picture.
That is the difficult bit actually and comes from a wealth of experience and an idea of significance testing.
Any "I never thought anyone would be likely to do that!" kind of thoughts should have been discarded years ago.
Always expect the worst is the best approach.
An expectation of "what ifs" is a good thing to keep in your armoury.
That`s why I don`t like doing EICRs (PIRs) because they can be time consuming and expensive, unless you just do a "drive by" instead (and I have seen plenty of those - Just meaningless rubbish worth throwing in the bin)

As mentioned elsewhere before I'm convinced some I've worked on have been for the wrong property

 

[ebee]

As mentioned elsewhere before I'm convinced some I've worked on have been for the wrong property

i will ditto that feeling

 

[morqthana]

I liked it when RR named their engines after birds, and rivers.

 

[JohnW2]

I liked it when RR named their engines after birds, and rivers.

Don't they still? The RB211 we were talking about was certainly named after a river (Trent).

 

[ericmark]

I agree with @ebee unless in house testing and inspecting, then how much for what price is tested, is not easy to advise on that without seeing the property, the South Wales court case, has raised the question is it worth it, as the inspector can't win what ever he does.

I look at where I volunteer and no way would I want to inspect and test, as I know most of it I would fail, can't say for certain, there may be RCD's I have not seen, but I look at the 3" I thing air line between two buildings, and I know the two buildings are supplied from a different step down transformers, and I question if there should be an isolation block.

However there is also railway lines, so can't really have plastic railway lines.

 

[morqthana]

Don't they still? The RB211 we were talking about was certainly named after a river (Trent).

I'd missed that.

Possibly because it would be more accurate to say the RB211 was eventually named after the River Trent.