Broken lens on PIR security light EICR code

Alan B: 
 

But I noticed the lense on the on the PIR was old and cracked

 

In BS 7671 terms:

• the basic means of basic protection from an enclosure is IP2X / IPXXB.
• the external influence of simply being “outdoors” in BS 7671 appears to be roughly IPX3 or IPx4

Does a “cracked lens” contravene those requirements and therefore lead to a safety issue? I can see that a “broken lens” with larger gaps and holes might, but not simply a “cracked” lens … and especially not when out of reach.

So the plastic enclosure is cracking failing, but as yet you cannot get a finger in, C3.

Once it has failed and the plastic flakes are on the floor and live bits are exposed to touch C1.

Does it ever pass through C2 on the way from one state to the other ?

I think it might.

Mike

PS treat the sensor when internal metal is exposed bits as ‘live’ - this is FELV, there is not isolation of the relay supply and electronics  from the mains.

I would still report this broken P.I.R. lens as at least a C3. But as I have not seen the extent of the damage I am being cautious.

1. The U.V. damage or impact damage has weakened the P.I.R. sensor so that even more of the enclosure may be compromised and access gained, or water ingress may occur. I expect that the manufacturer's instructions say not to use the device if damaged. What would happen if a person was on their metal ladder adjusting or moving the damaged device and their finger or thumb went through the brittle lens part into the bowls of the beast to 240 Volt land?

2. Not being able to be touched is no reason not to code this damaged accessory. Can painters reach the device whilst on steps? Can gardeners or window cleaners reach the damaged device whilst using steps? Can the householder reach this device to adjust or clean it?

3. We don't know the Voltages lurking about inside the device. AND what about mains Voltages tracking down condensation or carbon buildup to the point where it can be dangerous whilst you are on your earthed aluminium ladder?

5. Reliability. It may cause nuisance tripping of the lighting circuit. Not good. It should be removed/disconnected/replaced.

4. It is broken. It ain't right. Report it. You know it makes sense. This device is not “in a satisfactory condition for continued service”. It is life expired. 651.1

Z.

410.3.5

Z.

Are live terminals exposed? That is 410.3.5, not anything else. This situation is something which could develop in time to be a danger but is not at present. You simply point out that this could happen, but at present it is safe.

Let's examine your car as clearly the electrical case is too complex to understand.

The brake pads are only 3mm thick now, so I suggest you may like to change them fairly soon. Is the car AS IT STANDS dangerous? Not in any way! The brake fluid is old and has not been changed for a couple of years, it would be wise to change it soon as it is hygroscopic, which might affect performance.  The brakes test just fine. Is the car AS IT STANDS dangerous? Not in any way! 

You are inspecting an installation AS IT STANDS, and you may think it might deteriorate. Act as above, this is not some kind of guessing game. Following this “game” actually makes everything dangerous, it is not as proved by the very low accident rate, you need to understand relative risk. It can never be zero. That is why EICRs are difficult for the inexperienced or inadequate. It is easy as pie to over code everything, see “danger” everywhere, but in reality, this is not honest or professional. If you really want to see inadequacy the other way try watching the (live or recorded on Youtube) Grenfell enquiry, it is appalling. You will see people with false qualifications or inadequate experience trying to do a difficult assessment of safety. It has made me realise even more that an EICR is a difficult job attempted very badly by the under qualified and experienced.

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

Are live terminals exposed? That is 410.3.5, not anything else. This situation is something which could develop in time to be a danger but is not at present. You simply point out that this could happen, but at present it is safe.

Let's examine your car as clearly the electrical case is too complex to understand.

The brake pads are only 3mm thick now, so I suggest you may like to change them fairly soon. Is the car AS IT STANDS dangerous? Not in any way! The brake fluid is old and has not been changed for a couple of years, it would be wise to change it soon as it is hygroscopic, which might affect performance.  The brakes test just fine. Is the car AS IT STANDS dangerous? Not in any way! 

You are inspecting an installation AS IT STANDS, and you may think it might deteriorate. Act as above, this is not some kind of guessing game. Following this “game” actually makes everything dangerous, it is not as proved by the very low accident rate, you need to understand relative risk. It can never be zero. That is why EICRs are difficult for the inexperienced or inadequate. It is easy as pie to over code everything, see “danger” everywhere, but in reality, this is not honest or professional. If you really want to see inadequacy the other way try watching the (live or recorded on Youtube) Grenfell enquiry, it is appalling. You will see people with false qualifications or inadequate experience trying to do a difficult assessment of safety. It has made me realise even more that an EICR is a difficult job attempted very badly by the under qualified and experienced.

So if an deteriorated electrical item is likely to fail, and perhaps dangerously, we ignore it do we? Not me. I will record it as not being satisfactory, to cover my back.

If an incident occurred in the future, I might be accused of not recording that potential danger when I previously could. That could lead to serious trouble.

I don't like the idea of using my car with thin minimum depth brake pads. That's chancing things just too much. I believe in preventative maintenance.

651.1. “In order to determine, as far as is reasonably practicable, whether the installation is in a satisfactory condition  FOR CONTINUED SERVICE”

The broken leans will not self heal on the P.I.R. detector, but it will deteriorate more. 615.2  (v) and (vi).

“Live parts shall be completely covered with insulation….” 416.1

Z.

What code do you want to give this Z?

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

What code do you want to give this Z?

C3 until I see a photo of the beast in question.

Z.

Despite the things you said above, you admit it is not dangerous then? C3 is fair if it looks as though it might break, but I still prefer the observation for anything less bad. After all, you can glue up a windscreen crack!

mapj1: 
 

So the plastic enclosure is cracking failing, but as yet you cannot get a finger in, C3.

Once it has failed and the plastic flakes are on the floor and live bits are exposed to touch C1.

Does it ever pass through C2 on the way form one state to the other ?

I think it might.

Mike

PS treat the sensor when exposed bits as ‘live’ this is FELV, there is not isolation of the relay supply and electronics  from the mains.

 

The assumption of actually achieving C2 or C1 being, of course, that the lens itself is a barrier or enclosure providing basic protection, or is an integral part of the [often relatively “low”] IP rating of the product itself.
 

I think there may be products out there that can exist safely with cracked lenses for many years …