Electrical Testing

[JohnW2]

Inspection/legislation won't fly - too expensive, not worth it.

Agreed - as I said, it's not going to happen.

... so standards developed by bodies such as NAPIT, ESC etc, a way of using technology to log/audit testing activity, and check the logs, and the insurers telling their customers that they must have EICRs done (by anybody, at any price - free market etc) by someone who signs up to those standards, or their policy is null and void, and away we go.

I suspect that an insurance industry which doesn't yet insist on alarms, let alone sprinklers etc, for policy validity would not be going down that route any time soon.

In fact, I very much doubt that a significant proportion of insurance claims result from anything which would be picked up by testing of an electrical installation. Indeed, although this thread is about testing, I strongly suspect that, in terms of safety, testing is, in general, a relatively unimportant element of an EICR - it's the inspection (essentially impossible to 'police' without 'random re-inspections') which is likely to be far more important.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Adam_151]

It would not be beyond the wit of electrical trade bodies and insurers associations to create a rule which required the data to be retained with the report. I know - once it's on a PC it can be manipulated, altered, faked etc, but every little thing done to make it harder to fake results will stop some people from doing it.

I think you put too much emphasis on the schedule of results, most of the important stuff on an EICR is what the guy doing it observes.

Test results arn't always gathered in a conventional manor on an EICR either, you don't generally work through the sequence of tests in turn on each circuit in turn, you tend to test insulation resistance globally across DBs for example. You might even have a half hour window in the morning where you can isolate, unplug equipment and do your global IR. It might not be very good You might later on find you have a grotty looking outside light, you might wonder if that was the cause of your less than ideal IR, so you might take the OSL circuit out of the DB and IR it on its own, if its poor you might then want to state a global IR for the rest of the circuits without the faulty one connected, and then on the line for the faulty circucit state its individual IR value, you cant shut off and do another global test, so you use the calculation for resistances in parallel to work out what it is.

 

[JohnW2]

I think you put too much emphasis on the schedule of results, most of the important stuff on an EICR is what the guy doing it observes.

Indeed - as I wrote:

... although this thread is about testing, I strongly suspect that, in terms of safety, testing is, in general, a relatively unimportant element of an EICR - it's the inspection (essentially impossible to 'police' without 'random re-inspections') which is likely to be far more important.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Adam_151]

Sorry John, I skim read the thread and missed that

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think you put too much emphasis on the schedule of results, most of the important stuff on an EICR is what the guy doing it observes.

Well, no and yes.

An audit log from the tester which did not show tests corresponding to what ended up on the report, or where the times of them were suspect, would call into question the whole exercise.

The log could be made tamperproof, you could have a system whereby it had to be uploaded via a SIM in the tester to be used in a report - all sorts of technology could be brought to bear.

 

[Adam_151]

You propose a system which will just help the big names who have teams taking readings on a high circuit count per day to get a badge of approval!

Insulation resistances will still be recorded as >200 without being measured as they will just take the reading with the probes in the air, extra circuits will still appear as zs readings will be taken at whatever points are near and recorded as an end of line for non existant circuits

And there will still be no time for them to carry out visual inspections.

And the rest of us will have to buy updated equipment and spend more time faffing around just to keep up with them!.

Its not a problem which can be solved by some fancy computer system, the only way to weed out those doing bad perioidics is to have someone human looking through them and making the occasional site visit

 

[JohnW2]

Insulation resistances will still be recorded as >200 without being measured as they will just take the reading with the probes in the air, extra circuits will still appear as zs readings will be taken at whatever points are near and recorded as an end of line for non existant circuits ... And there will still be no time for them to carry out visual inspections. ... Its not a problem which can be solved by some fancy computer system, the only way to weed out those doing bad perioidics is to have someone human looking through them and making the occasional site visit

Exactly.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

Indeed, as we've often discussed. The risks to health and life posed by electrical installations are, surprisingly, so very small that nothing designed to improve safety can possibly have an appreciable effect on "people's health". Get rid of Part P and reduce BS7671 to a dozen pages of the most crucial advice (approximate guidance about cable sizing etc.) and you'd probably be hard-pressed to measure any detrimental effect on the community ... but that's not how the world works!

Kind Regards, John

Seriously? You want BS7671 cut down to pamphlet size. Is this because a lot of the regs don't apply to what you do as a DIYER? I don't recall seeing posts advocating throwing the regs away and certainly not by any professiionals.

Maybe the safety has arisen from following BS7671 and cutting it down to a few basics would result in a lot more deaths/injuries. Part P only says to work safely, hardly onerous.

As for these random tests. How will that work? Inspecting an MOT station or a hotel just requires a postocde. An electricain undertaking EICRS can do so at any address.

 

[JohnW2]

Note that I hadn't seen this post when I recently responded to another of yours, and more-or-less repeated what you are commenting in here.

Seriously? You want BS7671 cut down to pamphlet size. Is this because a lot of the regs don't apply to what you do as a DIYER? I don't recall seeing posts advocating throwing the regs away and certainly not by any professiionals. ... Maybe the safety has arisen from following BS7671 and cutting it down to a few basics would result in a lot more deaths/injuries. Part P only says to work safely, hardly onerous.

No, I obviously don't want that. I was merely pointing out (as you also have today) that the number of deaths and injuries due to electrical installations is (surprisingly) incredibly low, and adding that we really have no way of knowing whether they would be appreciably higher if there were (and never had been) any such formal regulations but, rather, that electricians had relied upon their training, knowledge, skill and experience to create safe installations, aided only by some basic reference material/guidance.

Part P itself is, indeed, not onerous, and probably not even necessary, since anyone contravening what it requires is probably already on the wrong side of other legislation (particularly if any harm results). My reference to it related primarily to the certification of notifiable work.

As for these random tests. How will that work? Inspecting an MOT station or a hotel just requires a postcode. An electrician undertaking EICRS can do so at any address.

I don't really understand. MOT stations and hotels are not the only addresses to have postcodes! As I keep saying, it's not going to happen - but if it were to be contemplated, there would obviously have to be some sort of 'notification' of EICRs (with a postcode!) to some body.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

.... reduce BS7671 to a dozen pages of the most crucial advice ....

How about 180-odd A5 pages?

 

[JohnW2]

.... reduce BS7671 to a dozen pages of the most crucial advice ....

How about 180-odd A5 pages?

It's obviously never going to happen, in any guise - and I never said that it would or should (merely that 'safety outcomes' might not alter much if it did!).

As for the OSG, that (allegedly) only exists as a side-kick to BS7671, so it's not really 'separate'. However, if BS7671 were (which it won't be!) to be replaced by something similar to the OSG, then I really do think one would probably struggle to detect a deterioration in safety outcomes!

Kind Regards, John