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 1914 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
    @tatty - but *why* would 'they'‍ prescribe code 2 do you think; would there be a situation where is not considered "potentially dangerous" I wonder.


    re: countering the ingress protection reference in that Reg: No live parts accessible; insulation in tact; perhaps whole piece out of general reach too; just a piece of mechanical protection gone missing, so just needs lid fitting back on....potentially dangerous....perhaps everything can be that in some situation...even a missing label informing of some potentially harmful experience to the unwary   :-)


    Just goes to show though.  As I say, I think accessibility and perhaps environment makes a difference between potentially dangerous or not. Perhaps NAPIT are just belt an braces and would also deviate on some situations...may be not.


    Thank you though for posting that. Interesting to know.



Reply
  • 0
    @tatty - but *why* would 'they'‍ prescribe code 2 do you think; would there be a situation where is not considered "potentially dangerous" I wonder.


    re: countering the ingress protection reference in that Reg: No live parts accessible; insulation in tact; perhaps whole piece out of general reach too; just a piece of mechanical protection gone missing, so just needs lid fitting back on....potentially dangerous....perhaps everything can be that in some situation...even a missing label informing of some potentially harmful experience to the unwary   :-)


    Just goes to show though.  As I say, I think accessibility and perhaps environment makes a difference between potentially dangerous or not. Perhaps NAPIT are just belt an braces and would also deviate on some situations...may be not.


    Thank you though for posting that. Interesting to know.



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