need rcd?

[steptoe]

Bang on.Even though you'd have rcd your new circuit, the other circuits in the bathroom must also comply. So it's adding the supplimentary bonds or rcd'ing the circuits that supply the bathroom.

Thats what the man said.

My answer was & I suspect many others probably also thought

"so long as my circuit complies & I've not touched any other circuits in the bathroom/property no need to bring upto current spec"

your assessor is wrong.

so I put a new socket on a radial 16a RCBO, beside the consumer unit, which is in the kitchen, I then have to upgrade the bonding and/or add RCD protection to the kitchen sockets, cooker, boiler controls, imm heater and downstairs lights?

 

[Voltimax]

I think NAPIT have got it right. More than 2381 - which anyone with good referencing skills can pass - but a chance to learn, commit and get qualified with a yearly inspection to check all is well. So what if it's open book - I'm not adverse to looking in the book when I need to! Better than guessing!

I'm more disturbed by electrical firms employing people with no qualifications whatsoever - but the supervisor signing off their work without even seeing the job. It happens more than we would like to admit. These unsupervised so called electricians have the credibility of years on the job - but essentially no comprehension or training in what it's all about!

Just a different side of the coin!

With respect I think you may be missing my point Dave.

I don't think Napit have it right at all. You have used yourself as an example, but you're one of those that had experience of the electrical trade. I know of at least two Napit full scope members here in Norfolk who had no experience of the trade whatsoever. They went to Napit and effectively took 2381 and 2391 and then they went out to work after 7 days. Are you telling me this is right and proper? The course I'm referring to was once called the Napit 'trade test'. It was designed for electricians that had no formal qualifications, but had experience. It was a way of getting them approved over a short period of time. These guys already knew how to wire ring mains, lighting circuits etc. At the end of the course they had qualifications to go with their experience, this I agree with fully. With regard to the NA2391 being open book and multiple choice again I disagree. People undertaking 2391 should have an underpinning knowledge of their trade in order to stand a chance of passing this exam. That said I agree that we all have to look at the book some times, but that's when you're on site, not in a school or exam room when you should have taken time to revise and cram for the subject material.

Let me make a comparison for you.

You have a loved one who is very ill and needs an operation. You go to a surgeon to talk about the operation and you trust them. What if that person wasn't a fully trained and experienced surgeon but had read a few books and asked questions on a friendly surgeons forum. How would you feel about letting them operate on your loved one? That would never happen you say, but it could and I believe it has been known for people to get into such jobs with fake qualifications.

You go to a garage to have your car repaired, you put your trust in the mechanic who you assume will do a good job and is experienced or at least has experienced mechanics supervising him/her. Instead you get someone who read a Haynes manual for 7 days. Would you be happy with this?

You let someone into your home to work on something that can kill you, you expect them to be fully conversant with what they are working on and have sufficient experience and qualifications not just one or the other.

All through the years trades have had masters and apprentices. I'm not saying that everyone should serve an apprenticeship, I know that isn't practical. What I am saying is that people should at least have some experience or be supervised until they can work on their own. Napit haven't got it right, they are abusing the system. For the people I described earlier, they should have to do some PRACTICAL training not just theory, then they will have both experience and qualifications.

I agree with what others have said, I think it's good that people come here and ask questions, however simple. In fact I admire them, but I have to also admit, that some of the questions that get asked concern me as they are being asked by people who are already practicing electricians, but working on their own. What other things are they doing that they're not asking questions about? I'm not trying to upset anyone here, I'm giving an opinion and as I've said before, I don't blame people for taking advantage of a corrupt system. The only ones in the wrong here are the scheme providers. ALL OF THEM! Please understand I maybe know a little more about this than the rest of you because I've made it my business to look deep into it.

 

[Voltimax]

your assessor is wrong.so I put a new socket on a radial 16a RCBO, beside the consumer unit, which is in the kitchen, I then have to upgrade the bonding and/or add RCD protection to the kitchen sockets, cooker, boiler controls, imm heater and downstairs lights?

Just to add to this, I would suggest a phone call to the IET tech line, you may be surprised at the answer you get (I'm talking about M107's question).

 

[steptoe]

Just to add to this, I would suggest a phone call to the IET tech line, you may be surprised at the answer you get (I'm talking about M107's question).

you know Im not going to, whats the answer?

I may just ring the guy done my NICEIC last week to ask him though.

I honestly dont understand since when the regs became retrospective, but only selectively.

Im not disputing opinions, but IMO thats all they are,

 

[professional]

There is a world of difference between what the schemes would have us do and what the regs require us to do....................

 

[steptoe]

There is a world of difference between what the schemes would have us do and what the regs require us to do....................

the regs DONT require us to do anything,

EAWR does though.!

its all about competence.

 

[professional]

the regs DONT require us to do anything,EAWR does though.!

its all about competence.

So we go full circle - why are competent person schemes routinely assessing people as "competent" who quite clearly are anything but...................?

 

[ianmacd]

So we go full circle - why are competent person schemes routinely assessing people as "competent" who quite clearly are anything but...................?

Why are you asking us and not them if thats what you believe?

 

[professional]

Why are you asking us and not them if thats what you believe?

It is what I KNOW - the Schemes conduct ALL of their dealings in secret so that sensible questions cannot be asked and they can NEVER undergo independent scrutiny. Similar tactics are used to stop effective representation of sparks within their own industry.

 

[ianmacd]

I would be careful there as thats bordering on slander.

 

[green-hornet]

So we go full circle - why are competent person schemes routinely assessing people as "competent" who quite clearly are anything but...................?

Unfortunately the assessment process only provides a level attained for that day.

If all answers are correct and the installation has no problems then based on that evidence you have to assess the electrician as competant.

Personal judgement and feelings are not allowed to influence this outcome.

Yes I do agree with a few posts on this topic, but I also think that Part P is flawed from its beginnings to how it is run now.

Yes there have been "back door" electricians but many of them are competant at what they do, and there is nothing we can do about it now its happened.

There are some members of this forum who have gone this route, and they all contribute to the forum and ask questions when they are unsure.

I have no idea how long Part P in its present form will last, but whilst it does we have just to accept its not perfect.

When you take on any work there are many influences that effect the way you do that work, one of the restrictions could very well be the cost, for some people the right way could be too costly, however a trained and competant electrician will be able to do a job that is as safe as it was before if not safer. You as the electrician will do the risk assessment and will consider the effects of your work, if the risk is minimal and you have done your best then add to your EIC or MWC the deviations you have made, even explain why if you have to.

When the BRB becomes law then this type of debate will never happen, so its good that it is only a guidline.

 

[davetheglitz]

With respect I think you may be missing my point Dave.I don't think Napit have it right at all. You have used yourself as an example, but you're one of those that had experience of the electrical trade. I know of at least two Napit full scope members here in Norfolk who had no experience of the trade whatsoever. They went to Napit and effectively took 2381 and 2391 and then they went out to work after 7 days. Are you telling me this is right and proper? The course I'm referring to was once called the Napit 'trade test'. It was designed for electricians that had no formal qualifications, but had experience. It was a way of getting them approved over a short period of time. These guys already knew how to wire ring mains, lighting circuits etc. At the end of the course they had qualifications to go with their experience, this I agree with fully. With regard to the NA2391 being open book and multiple choice again I disagree. People undertaking 2391 should have an underpinning knowledge of their trade in order to stand a chance of passing this exam. That said I agree that we all have to look at the book some times, but that's when you're on site, not in a school or exam room when you should have taken time to revise and cram for the subject material.

Let me make a comparison for you.

You have a loved one who is very ill and needs an operation. You go to a surgeon to talk about the operation and you trust them. What if that person wasn't a fully trained and experienced surgeon but had read a few books and asked questions on a friendly surgeons forum. How would you feel about letting them operate on your loved one? That would never happen you say, but it could and I believe it has been known for people to get into such jobs with fake qualifications.

You go to a garage to have your car repaired, you put your trust in the mechanic who you assume will do a good job and is experienced or at least has experienced mechanics supervising him/her. Instead you get someone who read a Haynes manual for 7 days. Would you be happy with this?

You let someone into your home to work on something that can kill you, you expect them to be fully conversant with what they are working on and have sufficient experience and qualifications not just one or the other.

All through the years trades have had masters and apprentices. I'm not saying that everyone should serve an apprenticeship, I know that isn't practical. What I am saying is that people should at least have some experience or be supervised until they can work on their own. Napit haven't got it right, they are abusing the system. For the people I described earlier, they should have to do some PRACTICAL training not just theory, then they will have both experience and qualifications.

I agree with what others have said, I think it's good that people come here and ask questions, however simple. In fact I admire them, but I have to also admit, that some of the questions that get asked concern me as they are being asked by people who are already practicing electricians, but working on their own. What other things are they doing that they're not asking questions about? I'm not trying to upset anyone here, I'm giving an opinion and as I've said before, I don't blame people for taking advantage of a corrupt system. The only ones in the wrong here are the scheme providers. ALL OF THEM! Please understand I maybe know a little more about this than the rest of you because I've made it my business to look deep into it.

I think we are probably singing from the same hymn sheet.

2381 is a nonsense exam for anyone with good referencing skills and in no way sufficient for someone to branch out on their own.

2391 is an academic exam - hence the high failure rate. With good exam technique and a background in electrical theory it can be passed by someone who has never wired a ring main (I know - I did it!). The practical and inspection aspects make the difference. This is the one thing that an unsupervised electrician should have - the ability to recognise an installation that is to the regs or not. This is the quality factor that needs to be enforced - but I'm not sure how you do it. Colleges are driven by pass rates - scam providers by membership. Larger electrical firms by cheap labour and maximum profits.

Being an electrician is not like being a surgeon however - you can make as many holes as you like in the 'patient', take as long as you like doing it and be able to repair any damage. If you can recognise a good installation you will get there - even if you do make a pigs ear if sinking sockets/chasing/lifting floorboards the first few times you try it! The customer will not be put at risk.

I've had to search around for a trusted mechanic - some main dealers only seem capable of replacing what the computer diagnostic recommends until the fault goes away or you run out of money. Arguably it's the same for electricians.

I'm not sure if the NA2391 includes the practical and inspection tests. If it does - then it is going the right way - and being less academic it may help some electricians who struggle with this (I've worked with a dyslexic electrician who was excellent practically - but would never be able to pass the 2391 in its current form). If it doesn't - then it's of no use whatsoever.

 

[Voltimax]

Dave, we are indeed singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

[Voltimax]

I must learn to read posts and questions correctly every once in awhile.

Here's advice from the ESC

Question:

When an electrical appliance such as a boiler or electric towel rail is to be installed in a bathroom where there is no supplementary bonding, and the consumer unit has rewireable fuses and no RCD protection, how can the installer comply with the 17th Edition?

Answer:

If an existing circuit of a location containing a bath or shower is extended, at least the extended part of the existing circuit must be provided with RCD protection. Supplementary bonding in a bathroom or shower room must be provided unless all the requirements in the 17th Edition for the omission of supplementary bonding are met.

I realize that's not the exact scenario that M107 describes, but I think it's close.