The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

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 31 subscribers
  • Views 3745 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

    mapj1:

    But the advice from the likes of NAPIT is intended for use by those who are unsure what to do and need to look it up, and must therefore must be worded as generic advice to cover all possible cases, and that must include the worst - so in all cases what it recommends  will be safe, but sometimes it will be excessively strict. This is the weakness /strength of a back and white "code"  approach - the strength is that it gives consistent results, the price is that it sometimes requires some nugatory work.

     




    Yes, the black and white, prescriptive approach helps one to take a view when the 'inspector' isn't sure of their practical knowledge and experience. Perhaps a basic book of codes might be more suitable as a training guide........


    Legh

Reply
  • 0

    mapj1:

    But the advice from the likes of NAPIT is intended for use by those who are unsure what to do and need to look it up, and must therefore must be worded as generic advice to cover all possible cases, and that must include the worst - so in all cases what it recommends  will be safe, but sometimes it will be excessively strict. This is the weakness /strength of a back and white "code"  approach - the strength is that it gives consistent results, the price is that it sometimes requires some nugatory work.

     




    Yes, the black and white, prescriptive approach helps one to take a view when the 'inspector' isn't sure of their practical knowledge and experience. Perhaps a basic book of codes might be more suitable as a training guide........


    Legh

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