Just read the thread. Don`t know where the infraction came in, but you were a bit harsh on the vetster,IMO....I agree, but apparently we are wrong, and i received an infraction for it too.http://www.talk.electricianforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=11813
But when people talk about "testing" they are usually thinking of R1+R2 and insulation. Not just testing with a volt stick.Testing- no argument. The tester goes into every job, regardless of "like-for-like" swap, or full rewire.......
Case in point: 3 weeks ago, call off a regular customer to replace a pendant - lamp falls out of lampholder.
When I attend, I use "voltage pen" to verify pendant dead (I`m not replacing the rose, just the lampholder.) I have live at lampholder, irrespective of switch setting. Ah, says I, we have a switch polarity issue. Open switch up - 2 no. singles. Both red. Both neutral.
Replace lampholder, fit lamp myself, describe problem to householder.
Next morning, Mrs. KME arrives with a danger notice for him to sign, he keeps a copy, we keep t`other.
If I hadn`t tested, I wouldn`t have found that fault, which was potentially life-threatening.
WelllllBut when people talk about "testing" they are usually thinking of R1+R2 and insulation. Not just testing with a volt stick.What you did (barely) comes under "test for dead" before working on a circuit.
Just because you found another fault does not make using a volt stick to prove for dead acceptable. Using an approved test lamp on the fitting would also have proved the same thing assuming an earth was present.WelllllExcuuuse me for not being explicit in every single step I took mate. I noted what I considered salient points, relevant to the discussion.
But, if we`re going to be retentive about it......
It WAS a flaming "test for dead" as you call it (I was always taught "safe isolation", but maybe it was different when you did it?). I was replacing a lampholder (2 pin bayonet thingy on a bit of flex....you know the item in question?).
I wouldn`t do "R1+R2, insulation etc" at that point, as I haven`t done anything to warrant that - the customer isn`t paying for a PIR of the ground floor lighting circuit!
The "(barely) test for dead" that I did highlighted an issue; the customer hadn`t been advised of a problem, or quoted for a repair cost, as no-one knew of the issue up to that time.
So we issue a danger notice. With me so far?
When I returned to do the remedial works, I carried out further testing to determine the location of the problem, and verification of correct connection of the other conductors associated with the circuit.
The original point I was making is that, had I gone in, switched off EITHER the MCB or main switch, I could have replaced the part, re-energised and walked away without finding the fault.
Does the "extended" version help, mate??
KME
n.b. There`s no "confusion" on my part :innocent
Just because you found another fault does not make using a volt stick to prove for dead acceptable. Using an approved test lamp on the fitting would also have proved the same thing assuming an earth was present.
If you actually READ what you quote, you will note that, at that time I was replacing a lampholder - there was 2 way switching, so I needed to verify "off". There wasn`t an earth available; therefore a test lamp may well NOT have shown the live. Furthermore, even if I HAD opened up the ceiling rose (artexed into the ceiling, so we were trying to avoid disturbing it!), suppose the earth was non-continuous to the fitting. Would the test lamp have operated? Possibly not.I was replacing a lampholder (2 pin bayonet thingy on a bit of flex....you know the item in question?).
Enter your email address to join: