WHY CANNOT AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER BE A QS.

This suggests to me that 2382, whatever edition is not fit for purpose, and from my studies of EICRs any pretence of QS approval is simply a box-ticking enterprise. It is the same for sole traders to larger enterprises, there are numerous “stupid” things written on EICRs, many of which are self-contradictory.

Let's examine the “trade route” to being an electrician. You have lots of time on various sites and some college training. The practical college work is intended to teach you basic skills of installation, much of which is making a “tidy” job. One hopefully learns what all the materials are called, and how to deal with them in day to day jobs. Do they teach you the rather more difficult things like taking up a floor, and more importantly putting it back so that the work is imperceptible? Modern finishes such as laminate and solid finished wood need high levels of skill that is not taught and not often encountered on site, but even here there is little chance to learn as mistakes are very difficult to correct. The theoretical training is obviously poor, as we see from the questions here, and during the regulations sessions. Many electricians have rather less knowledge than that in the OSG, that is why it sells. If something is not a “standard circuit” (as per OSG) then it is immediately questioned for being “unsafe”. Rules of thumb are used for anything slightly more tricky, such as diversity, and cable ratings and possible failure modes are a black art. Supplementary bonding and additional protection were obviously mentioned on a Friday afternoon after a session in the bar! Any discussion of circuit “overload” or circuit protection is well beyond understanding, leading to the continuous comments about reducing CPD ratings because of imagined serious outcomes.

As the QS in many cases oversees designs by the installer, he(she) should check the circuit design and loadings, installation methods and details, etc., if there is not a designated “designer”. It appears that the QS is often not qualified to do any of this “supervision” work, and the trade bodies do not care. I find that this is endemic in all areas of the construction industry, and other services too, the “training” is useless and just another box to tick. 

This suggests to me that 2382, whatever edition is not fit for purpose, and from my studies of EICRs any pretence of QS approval is simply a box-ticking enterprise. It is the same for sole traders to larger enterprises, there are numerous “stupid” things written on EICRs, many of which are self-contradictory.

Let's examine the “trade route” to being an electrician. You have lots of time on various sites and some college training. The practical college work is intended to teach you basic skills of installation, much of which is making a “tidy” job. One hopefully learns what all the materials are called, and how to deal with them in day to day jobs. Do they teach you the rather more difficult things like taking up a floor, and more importantly putting it back so that the work is imperceptible? Modern finishes such as laminate and solid finished wood need high levels of skill that is not taught and not often encountered on site, but even here there is little chance to learn as mistakes are very difficult to correct. The theoretical training is obviously poor, as we see from the questions here, and during the regulations sessions. Many electricians have rather less knowledge than that in the OSG, that is why it sells. If something is not a “standard circuit” (as per OSG) then it is immediately questioned for being “unsafe”. Rules of thumb are used for anything slightly more tricky, such as diversity, and cable ratings and possible failure modes are a black art. Supplementary bonding and additional protection were obviously mentioned on a Friday afternoon after a session in the bar! Any discussion of circuit “overload” or circuit protection is well beyond understanding, leading to the continuous comments about reducing CPD ratings because of imagined serious outcomes.

As the QS in many cases oversees designs by the installer, he(she) should check the circuit design and loadings, installation methods and details, etc., if there is not a designated “designer”. It appears that the QS is often not qualified to do any of this “supervision” work, and the trade bodies do not care. I find that this is endemic in all areas of the construction industry, and other services too, the “training” is useless and just another box to tick.