Your answers Gentlemen, please. This is indicating a serious problem in the Industry. Trust is now zero. I am disgusted with the behavior of these alleged "inspectors" who are dim, dumb, deaf and blind, and cannot read the BBB. It is not good enough is it?
The comparison with the MOT is interesting. When it started, it was a list of basic safety measurements and inspections. Now it has suffered the extreme feature creep of all bureaucratic systems put in place by Brussels, and it checks that the paint has not faded and the number plates are in the "right" fount! A slight exaggeration perhaps but honestly, the fount of the number plates? The reason given is that the "cameras must be able to read them", but this is palpable nonsense, my computer easily reads handwritten stuff, almost as well as I can and much more quickly. MOTs are used in the same way as EICRs, to get work. My partner's car had an advisory last year, "brake pipes slightly corroded". When examined I found so little problem it was very difficult to identify, the real inspection revealed the pipe in question was covered in tarry stuff and some dirt. It made her afraid to drive the car because failure was imminent! At one time cars used to rust pretty badly, and rust was a major cause of MOT problems. Now that technical improvement (and pressure on manufacturers to make cars last longer) has resulted in better paint, wax coating the inside of hollow sections galvanized material in some places, Aluminum to reduce weight, this has largely gone away. Strangely brake pipes are still made of plain steel, plastic-coated sometimes. If they are important for safety then why not copper alloy ones? Even retail the cost of enough new pipe in copper is a few pounds, in bulk it would be less, so why not mandate it for new cars, problem is gone for good? Manufacturers are quite happy to spend loads of money on gadgets, but basic safety, oh no!
We see the same with some electrical stuff, my favourite hate is poor quality plastic back boxes which split on sight. Some are so bad the knockouts need very careful drilling and sawing to make the hole, or the whole thing cracks, particularly when screwed to a typical not quite flat wall. Some makes are much better than others, but using the same material with glass filling (you wouldn't know without a section and microscope) would add a tiny material cost (2p perhaps) to an item which costs up to £2.00 anyway. In an EICR broken boxes are a common fault, but it is easily fixed at negligible cost at source.
My discussion on Eddy-currents with BOD demonstrates that the rules need to be sensible for an EICR. Exact compliance with BS7671 (including items that cannot be a problem in a domestic) without any room for maneuver is just like the MOT, a pointless box-ticking exercise, used by some to tout for work. It has become too difficult for many electricians to understand, as we know from the 2391 "dumbing down" procedure. However, we now have Laws that incorporate a faulty and over-complex rule-following inspection as a simple safety inspection. The justification is far from clear unless it is to protect one set of vested interests (electricians "clubs") from another isolated group (private Landlords). Does that sound like the MOT too?
Car steering and brakes are the most important, followed by major suspension defects and tyres. Our test, exposed conductors, lack of basic Earthing, followed by broken accessories allowing access, loose connections (we don't actually find these at present at all), obvious heat damage. Amazingly similar really (having once had a fail because the wash bottle became empty during the test and the tester could only get one squirt!)
The comparison with the MOT is interesting. When it started, it was a list of basic safety measurements and inspections. Now it has suffered the extreme feature creep of all bureaucratic systems put in place by Brussels, and it checks that the paint has not faded and the number plates are in the "right" fount! A slight exaggeration perhaps but honestly, the fount of the number plates? The reason given is that the "cameras must be able to read them", but this is palpable nonsense, my computer easily reads handwritten stuff, almost as well as I can and much more quickly. MOTs are used in the same way as EICRs, to get work. My partner's car had an advisory last year, "brake pipes slightly corroded". When examined I found so little problem it was very difficult to identify, the real inspection revealed the pipe in question was covered in tarry stuff and some dirt. It made her afraid to drive the car because failure was imminent! At one time cars used to rust pretty badly, and rust was a major cause of MOT problems. Now that technical improvement (and pressure on manufacturers to make cars last longer) has resulted in better paint, wax coating the inside of hollow sections galvanized material in some places, Aluminum to reduce weight, this has largely gone away. Strangely brake pipes are still made of plain steel, plastic-coated sometimes. If they are important for safety then why not copper alloy ones? Even retail the cost of enough new pipe in copper is a few pounds, in bulk it would be less, so why not mandate it for new cars, problem is gone for good? Manufacturers are quite happy to spend loads of money on gadgets, but basic safety, oh no!
We see the same with some electrical stuff, my favourite hate is poor quality plastic back boxes which split on sight. Some are so bad the knockouts need very careful drilling and sawing to make the hole, or the whole thing cracks, particularly when screwed to a typical not quite flat wall. Some makes are much better than others, but using the same material with glass filling (you wouldn't know without a section and microscope) would add a tiny material cost (2p perhaps) to an item which costs up to £2.00 anyway. In an EICR broken boxes are a common fault, but it is easily fixed at negligible cost at source.
My discussion on Eddy-currents with BOD demonstrates that the rules need to be sensible for an EICR. Exact compliance with BS7671 (including items that cannot be a problem in a domestic) without any room for maneuver is just like the MOT, a pointless box-ticking exercise, used by some to tout for work. It has become too difficult for many electricians to understand, as we know from the 2391 "dumbing down" procedure. However, we now have Laws that incorporate a faulty and over-complex rule-following inspection as a simple safety inspection. The justification is far from clear unless it is to protect one set of vested interests (electricians "clubs") from another isolated group (private Landlords). Does that sound like the MOT too?
Car steering and brakes are the most important, followed by major suspension defects and tyres. Our test, exposed conductors, lack of basic Earthing, followed by broken accessories allowing access, loose connections (we don't actually find these at present at all), obvious heat damage. Amazingly similar really (having once had a fail because the wash bottle became empty during the test and the tester could only get one squirt!)
