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 7079 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
    Strictly speaking an EICR is exactly as laid out in BS7671. If the client wants you to comment on other things that should be in a separate report.


    The reason I am objecting is simple, I am looking after you. Presumably you sign the EICR as inspector and then someone else changes it from code 3 to code 2, making the installation unsatisfactory. Does he sign, probably not. You as inspector are the duty holder as you know, and he is changing your report without your permission. Why? If you do this on a cheque you go to prison, and this is no less an offence. The EICR report is a legal document, with your professional opinion expressed in writing with your signature. If you make a mistake you could end up facing a court in the wrong box. JP could be giving expert testimony against you. Would your QS stand up and say "that was me"? I bet they wouldn't!


    The same goes for EICs and anything else you sign. I know many of these are "made up" in the office, but on occasion, and Grenfell may be a case in point, it comes back to bite very hard indeed. Basically you are responsible for anything which you sign as being true and correct.


    In response to the comment, the Inspector is the only one being the duty holder and should not allow any changes to his opinion, whatever his supervisor says (in this context there is no supervisor, don't let there be one unless he signs as inspector).


    Another thought. In this instance there is no QS anyway.  You are the qualified inspector, so the term is meaningless. If you are not, you should not be doing this job. He is very unlikely to be more qualified than you, and needs to prove it, although how I am not sure.


    Good luck.
Reply
  • 0
    Strictly speaking an EICR is exactly as laid out in BS7671. If the client wants you to comment on other things that should be in a separate report.


    The reason I am objecting is simple, I am looking after you. Presumably you sign the EICR as inspector and then someone else changes it from code 3 to code 2, making the installation unsatisfactory. Does he sign, probably not. You as inspector are the duty holder as you know, and he is changing your report without your permission. Why? If you do this on a cheque you go to prison, and this is no less an offence. The EICR report is a legal document, with your professional opinion expressed in writing with your signature. If you make a mistake you could end up facing a court in the wrong box. JP could be giving expert testimony against you. Would your QS stand up and say "that was me"? I bet they wouldn't!


    The same goes for EICs and anything else you sign. I know many of these are "made up" in the office, but on occasion, and Grenfell may be a case in point, it comes back to bite very hard indeed. Basically you are responsible for anything which you sign as being true and correct.


    In response to the comment, the Inspector is the only one being the duty holder and should not allow any changes to his opinion, whatever his supervisor says (in this context there is no supervisor, don't let there be one unless he signs as inspector).


    Another thought. In this instance there is no QS anyway.  You are the qualified inspector, so the term is meaningless. If you are not, you should not be doing this job. He is very unlikely to be more qualified than you, and needs to prove it, although how I am not sure.


    Good luck.
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