Pre-inspection and test

"Check the safety of electrical systems prior to the commencement of inspection, testing and commissioning"

Well for one, I'm confused. The whole point of I&T is to verify the safety of the installation and normally any hazards arising from that would normally (and probably necessarily) be dealt with within the I&T procedure itself. It sounds to be putting the entire horse and cart before another identical horse and cart. If it's someone's idea to do it cheaply by just putting say isolating & proving dead into qualified hands and then using cheaper unqualified labour to do routine testing and checklist-filling, that probably wants to be pushed back at (assuming is it safe/dead now 'cos it was proved dead by someone else a week ago?)

Sounds like another classic of having to go back to whoever wrote the words and ask them what they really meant (as they words don't seem to convey any intelligible meaning).

    - Andy.

I am glad others have difficulty in interpreting the requirement as I thought I must be missing something basic. 
it comes from the inspection and testing unit in the Electrotechnical Level 3 qualification as one of the assessment criteria for initial verification. 
Our industry puts these qualifications together but why they have to be so unnecessarily convoluted and obtuse, I have no idea. I have a feeling too many of the guys setting the criteria have been poisoned by management speak!

well if the authors were any good they'd be actually doing it right ?

(sorry I know you teach but could not resist..)

Joking aside in the era of word processing there is a very real problem that many textbooks, and  supposedly helpful memoranda and instructions appear to be published without technical moderation or review and end up being obtuse or misleading, and sometimes actually wrong as well.

In something as important as a syllabus it is a bad start .

Mike.

No problem taking that wee jibe on the chin Mike but whilst I have been teaching for nearly 30 years, it has only been part-time and I have been at the coal face even longer. So I feel rather entitled in criticising a qualification that is, after all, supposed to be the baseline for competence of electrical installation operatives. 

And I'd be right behind you, perhaps you ought to be the sort of person who sets the questions as well. It is a pity there is not a clearer way to feed back to the authors  on things like this.

M.

I think this is likley just bad wording (Hopefully)!

What I would have understood the comment to mean  "Is the installation, circuit/s in a suitable completed state that formal inspection and testing can commence?" 

In the Haz area world that I frequent if a technician takes over a part completed installation or is the technician about to commence the formal inspection and testing they are supposed to do a "Pre Check". That isnt of course the formal inspection and testing criteria that would be carried out, more of a walk round and visual check that the installation, circuit/s appear to be complete and environment and other working situations such that it is indeed safe for the Technician to start the formal inspection and test. If they noted any missing, incomplete, parts of the install/equipment or sensitive equipment that may be damaged by the formal testing then they would know how to deal with that.

Thats my tuppence worth, but agree wording used isnt great.

GTB 

I think this is likley just bad wording (Hopefully)!

What I would have understood the comment to mean  "Is the installation, circuit/s in a suitable completed state that formal inspection and testing can commence?" 

In the Haz area world that I frequent if a technician takes over a part completed installation or is the technician about to commence the formal inspection and testing they are supposed to do a "Pre Check". That isnt of course the formal inspection and testing criteria that would be carried out, more of a walk round and visual check that the installation, circuit/s appear to be complete and environment and other working situations such that it is indeed safe for the Technician to start the formal inspection and test. If they noted any missing, incomplete, parts of the install/equipment or sensitive equipment that may be damaged by the formal testing then they would know how to deal with that.

Thats my tuppence worth, but agree wording used isnt great.

GTB 

I think that we are agreed on that, but isn't the walk around part of inspection? Along similar lines, do we not start periodic testing with a walk around?