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 56 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 7078 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

Local Isolation For A/C Internal Units

Sparkymania
Hi

Doing EICRs, and the remedials resulting from them.


An issue had been raging as to whether an internal unit needs to have a local isolator.

There have been 2 schools of thought over this issue with others I am working with.


First one:

It is a an electromechanical piece of equipment and needs a local isolator even though it is being fed by an external unit that has it's own isolation.

Second one:

It is fed by the external unit and they are both one piece of equipment even though they are split with the two parts in different places. Turning off the isolator to the external unit isolates all the equipment.


In my opinion a local isolator is still needed as there is no way of knowing if the internal unit is definitely part the the external unit being isolated. It may just be off at the controls.


I have come across many A/C units that have been installed by A/C engineers and they have not put an isolator on the internal unit. I'm wondering if there is a reason that they don't or if it's just ignorance of the regs on their part. I would have thought their training would have included that. Is there something that they know that means they don't need to install an isolator to the internal unit?


Anyone have any thoughts?


Thanks

Parents
  • 0

    davezawadi:

    OK We have an NICEIC registered company doing PIRs which are not compliant with BS7671. Great, and they profit from the fraudulant results? The QS changes the results to suit himself? I'd put them in court in short order. Since when is the QS the inspector? Answer, never! I assume the inspector is suitably qualified, because otherwise the whole lot is worth nothing at all, whatever the QS qualifications are. I wonder if the test results are "modified" too?






    That's going way over the top. We're dealing with only one issue here. And to accuse them of modifying test results is ridiculous. And yes, I am suitably qualified otherwise I wouldn't be bringing up this issue. Isn't that what these forums are for?


    The QS has the right to change the code if he thinks the code reported by the inspector is wrong. Inspectors make mistakes too. What about the multiple discussions on forums about how something should be coded. The QS may disagree with the code given. That's not changing the result or fraud.


    I've been on an A/C forum where they also say this is a grey area. There are different opinions among other electricians as well. Even A/C maintenance engineers on that forum complain about installers not installing local isolators on internal units as a matter of good practice which causes them aggravation when servicing. 


    In the opinion of the QS it is a potential danger not to have local isolation as there is a possibility that the wrong external isolator can be locked off.

    The results aren't fraudulent as all of the remedials are passed to the university's estates dept first. They are then agreed with my company do to the remedials. So they have agreed the observation and even the code number, otherwise they would disagree with that as a remedial.


    So where is the fraud?


     

Reply
  • 0

    davezawadi:

    OK We have an NICEIC registered company doing PIRs which are not compliant with BS7671. Great, and they profit from the fraudulant results? The QS changes the results to suit himself? I'd put them in court in short order. Since when is the QS the inspector? Answer, never! I assume the inspector is suitably qualified, because otherwise the whole lot is worth nothing at all, whatever the QS qualifications are. I wonder if the test results are "modified" too?






    That's going way over the top. We're dealing with only one issue here. And to accuse them of modifying test results is ridiculous. And yes, I am suitably qualified otherwise I wouldn't be bringing up this issue. Isn't that what these forums are for?


    The QS has the right to change the code if he thinks the code reported by the inspector is wrong. Inspectors make mistakes too. What about the multiple discussions on forums about how something should be coded. The QS may disagree with the code given. That's not changing the result or fraud.


    I've been on an A/C forum where they also say this is a grey area. There are different opinions among other electricians as well. Even A/C maintenance engineers on that forum complain about installers not installing local isolators on internal units as a matter of good practice which causes them aggravation when servicing. 


    In the opinion of the QS it is a potential danger not to have local isolation as there is a possibility that the wrong external isolator can be locked off.

    The results aren't fraudulent as all of the remedials are passed to the university's estates dept first. They are then agreed with my company do to the remedials. So they have agreed the observation and even the code number, otherwise they would disagree with that as a remedial.


    So where is the fraud?


     

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