ZIG ZAG UnSAFE zone

[EFLImpudence]

I have just said what I believe to be the case - which, to me, makes sense as I have to comply with BS7671 or another recognised standard.

If you just choose to ignore parts of BS7671 (or other standard) because it is to difficult or merely because you can't be bothered, I fail to see why you would be concerned with any of it.



Would/could you install a lighting circuit today without a cpc and just note it as "That's the only cable I had"?



Surely there must be a definition of departure somewhere.
It is, after all, an odd word to choose or would you enter "I left at 5.30?

 

[PBC_1966]

So does BS7671 currently contain anything which defines what "departure" means in this context? (Those two regulation numbers quoted above perhaps?)

If it doesn't, then what is anybody expected to understand by the term other than its natural meaning of something which departs from the rules contained within the standard?

 

[JohnW2]

I have just said what I believe to be the case - which, to me, makes sense as I have to comply with BS7671 or another recognised standard.

Because of your scheme membership, you mean? That aside, there is theoretically no compulsion to comply with any Standard, 'recognised' (by whoever) or otherwise - one can theoretically demonstrate compliance with Part P by presenting arguments 'from first principles'.

If you just choose to ignore parts of BS7671 (or other standard) because it is to difficult or merely because you can't be bothered, I fail to see why you would be concerned with any of it.

I can imagine situations in which one was "concerned" about achieving as much compliance as possible with BS7671 - but with one issue for which compliance would be 'difficult'/ whatever (or if customer was not prepared to pay for the necessary work).

Would/could you install a lighting circuit today without a cpc and just note it as "That's the only cable I had"?

You obviously 'could', and that would certainly be a 'departure' from BS7671 in terms of the everyday meaning of the word, but I think you might not find it too easy to produce a convincing explanation as to why it was compliant with Part P.

...but what, for example, about a minor modification/addition to a lighting circuit which had no CPC (the work not involving any Class I fittings or metal switches etc.). Not "running a CPC to every point in the circuit" would be a departure from the requirements of BS7671, and quite probably would not be compliant with any other "recognised Standards". I don't know about you, but I imagine that at least some electricians would probably do such work.

Surely there must be a definition of departure somewhere. It is, after all, an odd word to choose or would you enter "I left at 5.30?

The word has more than one everyday/'dictionary' meaning. As well as relating to 'departure times' etc., it can also mean "a deviation from an accepted, prescribed, or usual course of action." (in many dictionaries) - and I think it's pretty commonly used in that sense. In the absence of some different "BS7671-specific definition", I think one has to assume that the word has that usual everyday/ dictionary meaning.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Because of your scheme membership, you mean?

Yes.

That aside, there is theoretically no compulsion to comply with any Standard, 'recognised' (by whoever) or otherwise - one can theoretically demonstrate compliance with Part P by presenting arguments 'from first principles'.

Yes, but then why would you be concerned with BS7671 at all?

I can imagine situations in which one was "concerned" about achieving as much compliance as possible with BS7671 - but with one issue for which compliance would be 'difficult'/ whatever (or if customer was not prepared to pay for the necessary work).

Ok.

You obviously 'could', and that would certainly be a 'departure' from BS7671 in terms of the everyday meaning of the word, but I think you might not find it too easy to produce a convincing explanation as to why it was compliant with Part P.

Precisely.

...but what, for example, about a minor modification/addition to a lighting circuit which had no CPC (the work not involving any Class I fittings or metal switches etc.). Not "running a CPC to every point in the circuit" would be a departure from the requirements of BS7671, and quite probably would not be compliant with any other "recognised Standards". I don't know about you, but I imagine that at least some electricians would probably do such work.

Why would you put that in writing?

The word has more than one everyday/'dictionary' meaning. As well as relating to 'departure times' etc., it can also mean "a deviation from an accepted, prescribed, or usual course of action." (in many dictionaries) - and I think it's pretty commonly used in that sense. In the absence of some different "BS7671-specific definition", I think one has to assume that the word has that usual everyday/ dictionary meaning.

I accept that but I still think there is a distinction between departure and disregard.
Is murder merely a departure from the law or a complete disregard?

If someone is noting non-compliance with BS7671, surely it must be to another standard to ensure acceptability.[/quote]

 

[PBC_1966]

You would first need to lose enough morality and decency to be prepared to see people die if it meant your ideological opposition to the whole concept of regulations prevailed.

Is it possible that, say, somebody plugging some damaged item into a socket you've installed with 100mA RCD protection could be killed when if the new socket had been provided with 30mA protection as required by the current edition of BS7671 he would have survived? Yes, of course, it's a possibility.

It's also quite possible that you could fully comply with the current rules in BS7671 by installing that single new socket with the specified 30mA RCD protection, leaving all the other sockets in the room on 100mA protection, and the person comes along and plugs into one of the old sockets instead of your new 30mA one and suffers a similar fate. But in another recent thread you seemed quite happy to suggest that providing the 30mA protection on just the new socket is fine.

I also pointed out that it's possible to get 10mA RCD sockets, which obviously provide a greater degree of protection than 30mA and could, similarly, mean the difference between electrocution and survival in some cases. But despite the fact that 10mA RCD protection is readily available, you are happy to recommend 30mA protection as specified by BS7671.

So let me paraphrase your comment a little and turn it into a question: Have you lost enough morality and decency that you are prepared to see people die because you think that merely complying with the minimum standards of BS7671 is good enough, when options which offer a greater degree of protection are available?

 

[JohnW2]

Because of your scheme membership, you mean?

Yes.

It was actually me that said it!

That aside, there is theoretically no compulsion to comply with any Standard, 'recognised' (by whoever) or otherwise - one can theoretically demonstrate compliance with Part P by presenting arguments 'from first principles'.

Yes, but then why would you be concerned with BS7671 at all?

Although some people clearly disagree, I think it is a reasonable approach to cite compliance with Part P in relation to 'all-but-one' issue, and to present that 'from first principles' argument for just that one issue (including an argument as to why it does not detract from compliance with the rest of BS7671 being a demonstration of 'reasonably safe').

...I don't know about you, but I imagine that at least some electricians would probably do such work.

Why would you put that in writing?

Unless you were prepared to lie, you could not sign the declaration without admitting the 'departure'.

I accept that but I still think there is a distinction between departure and disregard.

A departure can be due to 'disregard' or other things, but it remains a 'departure' regardless of the reason. The declaration in the firms only speaks of 'departure'.

If someone is noting non-compliance with BS7671, surely it must be to another standard to ensure acceptability.

Why? As I said (and you agreed, above), it is theoretically possible to demonstrate compliance with the law without reference to any Standards.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

it is theoretically possible to demonstrate compliance with the law without reference to any Standards.

In that case why would they be using the IET model form of certificate?

 

[stillp]

...but what, for example, about a minor modification/addition to a lighting circuit which had no CPC (the work not involving any Class I fittings or metal switches etc.). Not "running a CPC to every point in the circuit" would be a departure from the requirements of BS7671, and quite probably would not be compliant with any other "recognised Standards". I don't know about you, but I imagine that at least some electricians would probably do such work.

They would however have to justify their decision and demonstrate that the safety of the installation was not impaired by their decision to not provide a protective conductor.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It was actually me that said it!

Sorry. How did that happen?

Although some people clearly disagree, I think it is a reasonable approach to cite compliance with Part P in relation to 'all-but-one' issue, and to present that 'from first principles' argument for just that one issue (including an argument as to why it does not detract from compliance with the rest of BS7671 being a demonstration of 'reasonably safe').

Ok.

Unless you were prepared to lie, you could not sign the declaration without admitting the 'departure'.

I meant why would you put anything in writing if you, as your example, worked on a lighting circuit with no cpc.

A departure can be due to 'disregard' or other things, but it remains a 'departure' regardless of the reason. The declaration in the firms only speaks of 'departure'.

Why? As I said (and you agreed, above),

I did agree - but also said why would it be noted as departure from BS7671 on an EIC if none of it were compliant.

it is theoretically possible to demonstrate compliance with the law without reference to any Standards.

Again, they surely wouldn't be completing an EIC.

 

[PBC_1966]

With quote attribution corrected.....

Because of your scheme membership, you mean?

Yes.

That's fair enough as far as what you may do and still be covered by your scheme, but that doesn't apply to everybody and certainly not to the basic idea about what constitutes a departure from BS7671.

That aside, there is theoretically no compulsion to comply with any Standard, 'recognised' (by whoever) or otherwise - one can theoretically demonstrate compliance with Part P by presenting arguments 'from first principles'.

Yes, but then why would you be concerned with BS7671 at all?

Indeed - If one were going to argue the fundamentals from scratch, as John suggested earlier, then we toss BS7671 out of the window and don't refer to it again. But one could use selected aspects of BS7671 to make a point: "My overcurrent protection to ensure safety against fire risk from overloaded cables meets the relevant requirements of regulations X, Y and Z of BS7671." if it's then already accepted that those specific provisions of BS7671 are considered adequate protection agsinst said risk, then the point is made without having to start right back at basic calculations of how much heat will be dissipated at given loads, etc.

...but what, for example, about a minor modification/addition to a lighting circuit which had no CPC (the work not involving any Class I fittings or metal switches etc.). Not "running a CPC to every point in the circuit" would be a departure from the requirements of BS7671, and quite probably would not be compliant with any other "recognised Standards". I don't know about you, but I imagine that at least some electricians would probably do such work.

Why would you put that in writing?

Why wouldn't you if that's what you had done and had every reason to believe that, given the specific circumstances, it was reasonably safe?

I accept that but I still think there is a distinction between departure and disregard.
Is murder merely a departure from the law or a complete disregard?

Both, surely?

If someone is noting non-compliance with BS7671, surely it must be to another standard to ensure acceptability.

Acceptability to whom?

 

[stillp]

...but what, for example, about a minor modification/addition to a lighting circuit which had no CPC (the work not involving any Class I fittings or metal switches etc.). Not "running a CPC to every point in the circuit" would be a departure from the requirements of BS7671, and quite probably would not be compliant with any other "recognised Standards". I don't know about you, but I imagine that at least some electricians would probably do such work.

Why would you put that in writing?

Why wouldn't you if that's what you had done and had every reason to believe that, given the specific circumstances, it was reasonably safe?

"Having every reason to believe" is not enough. It would be necessary to be able to prove that it was no less safe that if a CPC had been provided.

 

[JohnW2]

it is theoretically possible to demonstrate compliance with the law without reference to any Standards.

In that case why would they be using the IET model form of certificate?

As a matter of convenience, and as a form actually designed to allow them to record the fact that they had complied with the great majority of the requirements of BS7671, with one or two stated exceptions? What alternative form would be available to them?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Not sure now you ask. That's what I've always thought correct.

120.3 & 133.5 - so, if it must be no less safe, it must comply with some other standard.

Just not doing something because you don't want to is definitely not a departure.

You should also consider 133.1.1, which requires every item of equipment to comply with a recognised Standard, preferably a BS or EN, then IEC, lastly "the appropriate standards of another country".

 

[JohnW2]

They would however have to justify their decision and demonstrate that the safety of the installation was not impaired by their decision to not provide a protective conductor.

Sure, as I keep saying, they would have to be prepared to provide that justification and explanation - although, in practice, I would say that the probability of anyone ever asking them to do that 'providing' would be exceedingly low.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not sure now you ask. That's what I've always thought correct.
120.3 & 133.5 - so, if it must be no less safe, it must comply with some other standard.
Just not doing something because you don't want to is definitely not a departure.

You should also consider 133.1.1, which requires every item of equipment to comply with a recognised Standard, preferably a BS or EN, then IEC, lastly "the appropriate standards of another country".

That would probably be one of their departures.