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 7060 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

  • 0
    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?
  • 0

    Funny thing is there is no "switching off for electrical maintenance" section.



    Isn't switching off for electrical maintenance just called "isolation"?

       - Andy.
  • 0

    AJJewsbury:




    Funny thing is there is no "switching off for electrical maintenance" section.



    Isn't switching off for electrical maintenance just called "isolation"?

       - Andy.



    Yes. Just making a bad joke.




     

  • 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?


     

  • 0
    It is a requirement of the EAWR that one tests dead before any work is carried out. Perhaps he doesn't know how to do that? Therefore this is a spurious claim which does not bear any scrutiny.
  • 0
    What is the role of a supervisor?


    Andy B.
  • 0

    davezawadi:

    It is a requirement of the EAWR that one tests dead before any work is carried out. Perhaps he doesn't know how to do that? Therefore this is a spurious claim which does not bear any scrutiny.






    OK. I presume you are talking about the A/C engineer. I agree with you about that. This was also my argument as well. The regs do not require "local isolation" to the internal unit that is part of a split system and can be isolated at the supply to the system externally. 

    I agree with the A/C maintenance engineer about installing isolators on internal units for maintenance otherwise they have to go running about to find the external unit which is on a locked roof or compound and the extra time it takes etc, etc but that is not part of an EICR to report what may be inconvenient to a maintenance engineer. They should take that up with the installers.

    However, I'm not sure what you mean by a spurious claim. Are you referring to the "wrong isolator being locked off" reason?. Like I say, this is all agreed with the client. They are not laymen who don't understand. They are electricians and building services engineers.

    For my part I would prefer not to have to report or do remedials on them. They are mostly in carpeted offices, above desks etc. A right pain.

    Remember, an EICR may include things that have been agreed with the client. If they have requested that all internal units must have isolators then that's their right. 

     

  • 0

    Sparkingchip:

    What is the role of a supervisor?


    Andy B.






    In the context of this post ensuring that the results of inspection and testing are recorded correctly on the appropriate certificates or reports.

    What is the question relating to exactly?

    Surely you're not saying the inspectors word is final and the supervisor has no input?

  • 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.
  • 0
    Davezawadi.


    Yes, I take your point and appreciate that what you are saying is for my protection.


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