Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 22 replies
  • Subscribers 27 subscribers
  • Views 1923 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

"potentially dangerous" or improvement required re: missing covers on conduit inspection fittings

psychicwarrior
Taking in to account the guided definition of "potentially dangerous" and any IP rating compromise (and loss of mechanical protection):


If I proffered that missing covers/lids from a steel conduit inspection fittings was not worthy of being described as potentially dangerous, would you agree, or argue it was ?


Would you be persuaded one way or the other depending on the 'accessibility' factor ?


My take: if its out of the way from fingers etc, then i'd say not potentially dangerous. If it was readily accessible for touch/impact, then I would be thinking otherwise.


Reading back on some [I think] well known guidance regarding periodic inspections, there is a bit regarding where cable sheathing is not taken into an enclosure leaving the basic protected conductors exposed to touch; in some conditions it is considered as not "potentially dangerous" but only requiring "improvement" and from past threads this has provoked some interesting debate and opinions; is there a difference from these situations to the above missing lids question (or even indeed trunking lid missing or unused cable access holes in trunking) ?


Hope you are all keeping well and enjoying the 'new' forum ! :-)

Cheers

Habs
Parents
  • 0

    line up 10 professionals and see the variety of opinions




    Quite so - but the likelhood is that 9/10 of them are various 'right answers'.-  which is sort of my point, I'd expect that we agree on the extremes, and are a bit mixed on the corner cases, where you could toss a coin as to the best recommendation, as it is marginal, so whatever you do, either result is a good outcome, with varying degrees of strictness. The one to avoid is being badly wrong of course.

    Who decides what then depends a bit on personal background - if you mostly have worked in aerospace or on medical kit you may be likely to be less flexible than if you have worked a lot installing farm equipment, or working on installations in the 3rd world, which are not equivalent, but our  varying experiances calibrate the personal sense of 'seriousness' of some departures from the ideal.

    One man's untidy but OK, will be be another's inadequate labelling and segragation for safe isolation.


Reply
  • 0

    line up 10 professionals and see the variety of opinions




    Quite so - but the likelhood is that 9/10 of them are various 'right answers'.-  which is sort of my point, I'd expect that we agree on the extremes, and are a bit mixed on the corner cases, where you could toss a coin as to the best recommendation, as it is marginal, so whatever you do, either result is a good outcome, with varying degrees of strictness. The one to avoid is being badly wrong of course.

    Who decides what then depends a bit on personal background - if you mostly have worked in aerospace or on medical kit you may be likely to be less flexible than if you have worked a lot installing farm equipment, or working on installations in the 3rd world, which are not equivalent, but our  varying experiances calibrate the personal sense of 'seriousness' of some departures from the ideal.

    One man's untidy but OK, will be be another's inadequate labelling and segragation for safe isolation.


Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines