Regulations, Guidances, Training and 'blind followers'

[ban-all-sheds]

Quite often Gas safe engineers will not commission a boiler without (unrequired and unnecessary) so called cross-bonding of all the pipes connected to it.
You can argue your case but it they won't sign they won't sign.

You begin dealing with that by saying "I'm not paying you a penny because of your incompetence and your inability to understand the regulations which you, as a professional, are bound by.

E.g. "Electrical equipment shall be installed in accordance with the instructions provided by the manufacturer ..."
There is no provision made should the manufacturer's instructions be unnecessary or just wrong.

There is.

There is the paragraph on p2 which points out that people must rely on their own skill and judgement when using the publication. And the one lower down which points out that compliance with a B.S. cannot confer immunity from legal obligations (e.g. EAWR, Building Regulations, CDMR, not to mention anything contractual).

There is also 133.2 and 133.3 which could easily be taken to indicate that the choice or installation of equipment which when installed according to the MI creates a breach of the Regulations is in itself non-compliant.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What is the point of the On Site Guide?

It must only be to accommodate those who can't or don't know how or even why to work out things for themselves.

Such people would do well to read, and reflect upon, the disclaimer on p2, and paragraphs 2 & 3 of the Preface.

 

[JohnW2]

The word obviously appears in their text. However, in terms of specifics, it says "For sheathed and/or armoured cables installed in accessible positions, suport by clips at spacings not exceeding the appropriate value sated in Table 4A" (without any qualifications/exclusions regarding otherwise-supported cables).

There you are then - it does not apply to cables on tops of beams because the clips are not providing support.

Whilst that's literally true, I don't think that is how most people would interpret what it says. I think that most would take it to be saying that such a cable (in the absence of qualification, presumably whether it be vertical, horizontal, above or below a beam or whatever) should be clipped at distances not exceeding those given in Table 4A - even though, as you say, those clips will be 'restraining', not 'supporting'

I was actually talking about horizontal

Cables lying in horizontal ducting or trunking are supported by the ducting or trunking and do not need clips to provide that.

I know. The point I was making was that, in this case, they did explicity acknowledge that horizonal cables in ducting/trunking do not need the support of clipping. I believe that the absence of such an 'exclusion' from the wording mentioned above increases the possibility that it will be interpreted in the manner I suggested.

which...
1) Shows the over-simplification in the OSG - as I have been saying, a cable on top of a beam is not being supported by the clips.
2) Leads me, as someone with the ability to think, and a certain amount of knowledge, that the word "support" might be better replaced by "restraint", and that the purpose of clips on vertical runs is to stop the cables being snagged and pulled.

I agree. If we are going to have these guidelines, and particularly if some people (particularly those who are less inclined to do thinking) are going to treat them as if they were 'rules', then they ought at least to be as cleear and correct as they could be - which the OSG, for one, most certainly isn't.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Whilst that's literally true, I don't think that is how most people would interpret what it says.

That's an assertion that most people do not understand the meaning of "support" in a mechanical context.

 

[JohnW2]

Whilst that's literally true, I don't think that is how most people would interpret what it says.

That's an assertion that most people do not understand the meaning of "support" in a mechanical context.

Not really. For a start, it wasn't really an 'assertion' - I said "I think that...". What I thought (and still think) is not that many/most people do not understand the mechanical meaning of the word but, rather, that they might well not 'notice' that the word was there - instead just reading the sentence as an instruction that the cables concerned had to be clipped at intervals indicated in the table, regardless of whether they required mechanical support or not. I may, of course, be wrong - but, FWIW, I have to that that such is how I read it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not really. For a start, it wasn't really an 'assertion' - I said "I think that...".

I think that you will find that saying "I think that {whatever}" is an assertion that {whatever} is true.

What I thought (and still think) is not that many/most people do not understand the mechanical meaning of the word but, rather, that they might well not 'notice' that the word was there

So now you're asserting that most people are unable or unwilling to read the guide properly.

 

[JohnW2]

Not really. For a start, it wasn't really an 'assertion' - I said "I think that...".

I think that you will find that saying "I think that {whatever}" is an assertion that {whatever} is true.

Maybe. I'm no scholar of English. However, in terms of the everyday English I speak and hear "I think that X=Y" tends to convey a lot less certainty (or 'assertion') than does "X=Y".

What I thought (and still think) is not that many/most people do not understand the mechanical meaning of the word but, rather, that they might well not 'notice' that the word was there

So now you're asserting that most people are unable or unwilling to read the guide properly.

Not really. I'm merely expressing an opinion as to the way I believe that many people would 'take' the sentence concerned. I may be wrong.

Much more of this linguistic quibbling (presumably intended to be provocative), and it will have to be moved to a 'spin-off from the spin-off thread'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not intending to be provocative.

I just think that people should stop making excuses for other people who are not competent to write, or read, regulations and guidance.

The presence of the word "support" really is clear, and it really is clear that clips are not providing support to a cable on top of a beam, and anybody who thinks otherwise really has failed to read properly.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not intending to be provocative. I just think that people should stop making excuses for other people who are not competent to write, or read, regulations and guidance. The presence of the word "support" really is clear, and it really is clear that clips are not providing support to a cable on top of a beam, and anybody who thinks otherwise really has failed to read properly.

In a literal sense, you are correct. I have merely suggested how I think many people will probably interpret it - even though, as you say, by so doing they will have 'failed to read properly'. As I said, I may be wrong.

Technical misuse of the word 'support' in everyday language is not at all uncommon - not something I would defend, but something I acknowledge to be the case. For example, there are countless medical appliances called 'supports' described as giving 'support' (usually actually restraint against movement), particularly of joints, without 'taking any of the weight' of anything.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I would say we have to look carefully at the question asked. We have people who think some thing has been done wrong and want to complain and we also have people who want to DIY in a reasonable manor plus those who know their work is to be inspected and don't want it to fail.

So "Can I" and "Is it permitted to" or "Does this seem OK" may produce different answers to the same basic question.

The discussion about "New Circuit" and what it means will get different answers to is it all right to do this under Part P.

As I moved from job to job so I had to adjust to what my bosses required when working in the Point of Ayr gas terminal I had very strict instructions as to how many plastic cable ties to stainless steel cable ties to use to ensure safety for fire fighters in the case of fire. But when doing a shop re-fit the rules were just get it in and working with SELV transformers just sitting on plaster board.

We have if we are honest done work in a way we know is wrong. Be it removing a socket or switch without isolating first or working live in a consumer unit, but although we may do this from time to time we would not give instructions on the forum to do this.

The problem is we have to complete installation or minor works certificates where we sign to say what we have done is correct. I think this is the real problem as far as rule following. Ten years after we have done a job some one may snag what we have done and demand we correct it or blame us for some thing which went wrong.

We see news paper reports on accidents and often think "There by the grace of god go I". One sees how the land lord is blamed for faulty installation but no blame is placed at the door of the tenant who continued to use some thing which was faulty even though he knew there was a fault.

Any wonder why we hid behind the regulation book and other official documents when doing an installation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Technical misuse of the word 'support' in everyday language is not at all uncommon - not something I would defend, but something I acknowledge to be the case. For example, there are countless medical appliances called 'supports' described as giving 'support' (usually actually restraint against movement), particularly of joints, without 'taking any of the weight' of anything.

I came across this today:

In the next decades, regions around the world will face
increasing changes from two types of threats: acute threats and
chronic threats. Acute threats are natural and man-made
catastrophes such as hurricanes and earthquakes. Chronic
threats are the causes of shortages of basic resources such as
water, food, and energy.

 

[JohnW2]

I came across this today:
In the next decades, regions around the world will face increasing changes from two types of threats: acute threats and chronic threats. Acute threats are natural and man-made catastrophes such as hurricanes and earthquakes. Chronic threats are the causes of shortages of basic resources such as water, food, and energy.

I think you may have to explain your point. As we`ve often discussed, I`m very used to seeing the words `acute` and `chronic` used incorrectly (at least, in terms of their technical meaning in medical and other fields), but the usage above is pretty close to those (`technical`) meanings ... or am I meant to be noticing something totally different from that?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Maybe it's time for me to go , but I thought that "chronic" meant constantly recurring, or of a long duration, from the Latin via Greek words to do with time.

Causes of shortages of basic resources such as water, food, and energy may or may not be chronic.

Hurricanes are a chronic threat.

 

[JohnW2]

The problem is we have to complete installation or minor works certificates where we sign to say what we have done is correct. I think this is the real problem as far as rule following. Ten years after we have done a job some one may snag what we have done and demand we correct it or blame us for some thing which went wrong. ... Any wonder why we hid behind the regulation book and other official documents when doing an installation.

This is where it becomes necessary (for individuals or professions) to decide 'what they want to be', and how much responsibility they want to have. Traditionally, 'professionals' such as engineers, scientists and doctors used their training, skills, knowledge and experience to make decisions (as to how to do things etc.) for themselves (and had to bear full responsibility for their decisions and actions), whereas the corresponding fitters/technicians/paramedics/whatever had to work strictly to sets of rules, protocols, checklists, flowcharts, algorithms or whatever (which neither required nor allowed them to 'think' individually) - and bore no personal responsibility so long as they religiously obeyed those rules etc. Under that system, some people are more comfortable not having the responsibility of being 'professionals', yet there are many advantages, both to the individuals and the wider world, in having those professionals.

In more recent times, of course, many of the professions have been moved more in the 'non-thinking' direction - which is the situation I find saddening.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe it's time for me to go , but I thought that "chronic" meant constantly recurring, or of a long duration, from the Latin via Greek words to do with time.

More-or-less. Chronic means long-term, long-lasting, persistent or suchlike - as you say, from the Greek 'Chronos'.

Causes of shortages of basic resources such as water, food, and energy may or may not be chronic.

Very true, but I think what the writer was meaning was that one of the types of threat that will be faced will be chronic shortages of those things. Let's face it, in terms of the big picture, acute shortages (i.e. lasting for only brief periods) are no big deal.

Hurricanes are a chronic threat.

We might perhaps be down to a little pedanticism again here I suppose its true to say that the threat of hurricanes and earthquakes is a chronic thing, but the hurricanes and earthquaques themselves are most definitely acute events (over in days or minutes respectively).

Taking some medical analogies, most people with epilepsy face a constant (hence chronic) threat of seizures, but the seizures themselves, when they happen, are very much acute events, usually only lasting for minutes. Similarly people with chronic peptic ulcers may be at risk of periodic brief periods of acute bleeding from those ulcers. Coronary artery disease is chronic, but consequential heart attacks are very much acute events. ... etc. etc.

If you want to get more confused, medical terminology includes 'subacute' and (less commonly) 'subchronic' (for durations between the extremes of acute and chronic) and, probably most confusing of all, 'acute-on-chronic' - which refers to a short-term (acute) exacerbation of a chronic disorder ('acute-on-chronic bronchitis' probably being the most common example).

Kind Regards, John