Open fronted floodlights - poll

[RF Lighting]

I was taught that when carrying out PIRs / EICRs to note down anything related to the electrical installation which could have an impact on safety. This includes things which are not directly covered by BS7671, but these items can not be coded.

For example if we powered down an installation and noticed that emergency lights failed to light, or found a fire alarm supplied via an FCU fed from a ring final circuit we would record this on the EICR and notify the client, even though they do not contravene any of the regulations in BS7671.

I'm still not sure which category I'd put these lights into.

For a BS7671 contravention we could think about 422.3.1 Whilst they can not eject what I would class as flammable materials, they could eject materials which could start a fire. We are also back at the whole what constitutes a none flammable material like the great amd. 3 CU debate.

 

[flameport]

Is there a UV risk as well?

Depends on the lamp fitted, some have UV filtering, others do not.

 

[Iggifer]

For a BS7671 contravention we could think about 422.3.1 Whilst they can not eject what I would class as flammable materials, they could eject materials which could start a fire. We are also back at the whole what constitutes a none flammable material like the great amd. 3 CU debate.

This was exactly my thinking. Molten glass isn't what I'd call flammable, but it definitely has the potential to start a fire

 

[bernardgreen]

but it definitely has the potential to start a fire

and can burn deep into human skin before the pain alerts the victim, by which time it is too late

 

[JohnW2]

I was taught that when carrying out PIRs / EICRs to note down anything related to the electrical installation which could have an impact on safety. This includes things which are not directly covered by BS7671, but these items can not be coded.

As I implied, that was my hope. However, even if it is the case that such things 'cannot be {formally} coded', that presumably does not preclude the 'note' including phrases like "improvement recommended", "potentially dangerous" and "danger present".

I suppose my main concern about this is that it if something cannot be formally 'coded', it probably does not affect the 'overall' assessment of the EICR - i.e. it would be possible to 'pass' an EICR despite the inspector believing (and 'noting' on the EICR) that a potential danger was present. Hopefully, in practice one could probably nearly always find a 'catch all' reg in BS7671 to allow the matter to be 'coded'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OOI I just looked to see if 559 says anything.

Total aside, but I'd never seen 559.5.1.208 before.