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 36 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 3096 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Last few days/hours to comment on Amendment 2, BS7671 before the shutters close

mapj1
Just a reminder the deadline for comments on the latest draft for  comment is fast approaching - this Friday the 11th in fact. (Though it is not clear if that is midday or midnight, so probably best to log in and out again before the end of Thursday..)


If you wish to comment and have not yet done so you need to create an account on the BSI website

Click on login/register on the RHS of the BSI welcome page  and  give them an email you can read without needing to change machine, as you need to click a verify link they send you.

Once logged in  search for "BS 7671:2018" oddly searching for BS 7671 without the space between BS and 7671:2018 does not find it...

There are 4 links as the thing is a bit of a monster. PDFs of each part can be downloaded for perusal, but to finally comment you need the on-screen viewer (the Read Draft and comment button)

This is not quick so allow plenty of time.



regards Mike
  • 0
    mapj1:


    Remember that in the UK the regs are non-statutory,

     


    ... except where compliance with them is required for one reason or another, e.g. Regs 21 and 22 of ESQCR.


  • 0
    I am afraid that I am not as optimistic as Mike on this.I rather suspect that the rot set in some years ago. Surely some of the 'sillies' could reasonably have been foreseen by anyone with a smidgin of experience and competence? If not, what the hell are they doing sitting on such committees, let alone drafting new additions/deletions?


    The recent recommendations/amendments (from the 17th onwards) are either driven by commercial interest or sheer incompetence - take your pick, although a cynic may be forgiven for siding with the former.
  • 0
    mapj1:

    Remember that in the UK the regs are non-statutory, and in other technical fields there are plenty of abandoned standards (some BS, some EN some ANSI) that no-one follows any more for one reason or another, because they were inadvertently locked to one way of doing things that is simply not used in practice.

     

    Don't forget rented homes in England are now required to conform with BS7671 (though no mention of the amendments in the current regulations).  If the regulations are updated, SPDs and AFDDs could become compulsory in rental properties.
  • 0
    So how would you code the lack of one for an EICR? Would you fail the installation?
  • 0
    whjohnson:

    So how would you code the lack of one for an EICR? Would you fail the installation?


    Good question and I take the point! The argument for SPD (save in a hospital) is purely economic, so no code or C3. AFDD is intended to improve safety, but without it, we still have two faults required to danger so could not be more than C3.


    If you want to be very strict, you could argue that the absence of recommended AFDD already requires improvement so C3! ?


  • 0
    AFDD is intended to improve safety, but without it, we still have two faults required to danger

    Two faults to danger from electric shock, but perhaps not two faults to danger from fire?

       - Andy.
  • 0
    AJJewsbury:
    AFDD is intended to improve safety, but without it, we still have two faults required to danger

    Two faults to danger from electric shock, but perhaps not two faults to danger from fire?


    Which is why I would be more inclined to code absence of AFDD than absence of SPD.


    Now then, which is a better means of detecting a dangerous arc fault - inspection or AFDD?


  • 0
    Since unlike a RCD/RCBO,  neither the AFDD nor the SPD are presently capable of being tested, therefore I would argue that no code would be applicable.

    I would argue that since the capabilities of either device cannot proven under I&T conditions, that unlike a RCD/RCBO, the risk is the same whether the device is present or not.
  • 0
    I thought that AFDDs had a Test button...

       - Andy.
  • 0
    AJJewsbury:

    I thought that AFDDs had a Test button...

       - Andy.


    Some ... but not all, and it's not a requirement of BS EN 62606 at the moment to the best of my knowledge.


Community Rules & Guidelines