WHY CANNOT AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER BE A QS.

The QS does not have to engage in the installation work so does not need to be an electrician. The QS is responsible for the technical standard of the work and as it says on the tin “supervise”.

So could a professionally registered engineer with an 18th Edition Qualification and a 2391 qualification for fill the duties of a QS? Bearing in mind that some QSs already in the clubs have come through the 5 day wonder courses.

By the way you do not have to be a member of any scheme or organisation to carry out EICRs domestic or otherwise.

John Peckham: 
The QS does not have to engage in the installation work so does not need to be an electrician. The QS is responsible for the technical standard of the work and as it says on the tin “supervise”.

I think that sums it up pretty well.

I would say that the designer and QS need to be able to determine what is to be achieved and to be assured that it has been; whilst the electrician needs to know how to put it in. So for example a 10 sqmm cable is specified from a CU to a shower, but fishing it through a void or down inside a stud wall is the electrician's problem.

I talked to a couple of guys who were working for Central Networks when it was taken over by Western Power, they said that the new America owners were getting rid of many jobs that existed from before they took over.

I was told that the guys who walked the electric lines to carry out the visual inspections were some of the first to go, because the new owners replaced them with helicopters.

Next was a whole tier of middle management who supervised site work, apparently the Americans could not understand why a skilled and qualified workforce would need so much supervision.

Which begs the question, if a firm has skilled and qualified electricians what purpose does the role of QS serve?

Horses for courses and defined scope. If you are claiming to be Installation “electrician” for purposes of QS to supervise electrical installation work in a firm or a one person enterprise , you need to have proof of being a practising “electrician” with NVQ 3 or equivalent experience. Defined scope could be someone just doing EICRs and no installation work. What is the point of a QS? A part of the chain for certification schemes to satisfy their UKAS accreditation. In practice, if you have ever been one ( a QS for installation purposes) it is nigh impossible for you to be employed as such without you needing or expected to be carrying out a whole load of installation work on a regular basis yourself. The “supervision” is an add on that would not be tolerated by most employers….you will not be given the time for it. Hourly rate for a CEng QS? ?

There is no definite requirement for the QS to carry out any inspection and testing or even to visit site, only to review the test certificates and reports sat in some remote office . 

In the case of the fatal accident of Emma Shaw the fabricated  EICs for 42 flats carried out by an unqualified electricians mate were over signed by the QS. They contained obvious errors including the wrong earthing system recorded. The QS never went to site. He was asked in the police tape recorded interview how a person could do 7 of these test on one day and 8 on the next day when he stated that it takes a half day to do a single test. Then on the Friday 15 tests.  

That is the QS system at work. 

Yes, but it is still supervision, though token  . It is the way it has always been . It is a box that is ticked , and the enterprise takes the risk and reward. Mostly it is reward, so the lowest common denominator is set. That is what the market wants based on lowest price. Of course, in the splendid isolation of not being at the coal face, it is easy to be critical of what is a trading reality for electricians.

Simply, most employers cease any semblance of supervision when the apprenticeship finishes, deeming them “ qualified” when they are paid full electrician wage.  The employer wants best value.

This is not to be critical of the aspiration of the OP, I am stating the reality. It is a view I tried to force to nth degree 20 years ago, then we ended up with part P that entrenches what IMO is a deceit. The area engineers know it, but it is not their fault, all they can do is some form of damage limitation.

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. 

davezawadi (David Stone): 
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?

You just look on YouTube don't you?

Some years ago I googled for the best techniques for lifting floorboards. That also turned up advice for home owners, which seemed to boil down to “ask the electrician or plumber what boards need lifting, then hire a joiner to do it. Under no circumstances allow the electrician/plumber to do it themselves”.

I have been up to Leeds today, due to a lorry breaking down in the middle of a junction it took me three hours and twenty six minutes to drive home. Whilst I was driving I listened to nineteen Sparkyninja podcasts on Spotify, some of which are actually the soundtracks from Youtube videos. I am still trying to work out how many CPD points to award myself for that binge listening session.

In amongst them was this the soundtrack to this Youtube video from two years ago about the landlords safety inspections, it explains the original intentions and how we actually ended up where we are now.