Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 26 replies
  • Subscribers 47 subscribers
  • Views 6399 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Requirements for AFDD's on new installations following amendment 2?

Jblades

Following the amendment to Regulation 421.1.7

This now states that AFDD protection for socket outlets and fixed current using equipment is now "required" rather than recommended. I was wanting to know peoples thoughts on this, as currently an RCBO/AFDD is coming in at around £100 each, meaning cost implications on new consumer units will be huge. The cost doesn't directly affect us as contractors but more the end user. This could possibly put people off the idea of upgrading their consumer unit, no matter how dangerous the existing one currently is.

 

Parents

  • Now we have products ... to a product standard published for 8 years ... that are rumoured not to be "effective"?

    Well isn't that the situation we find ourselves in with BS 7288? (RCD sockets - but not effective enough to be recognised by BS 7671)

       - Andy.

Reply

  • Now we have products ... to a product standard published for 8 years ... that are rumoured not to be "effective"?

    Well isn't that the situation we find ourselves in with BS 7288? (RCD sockets - but not effective enough to be recognised by BS 7671)

       - Andy.

Children
  • in reply to AJJewsbury
    AJJewsbury said:

    Now we have products ... to a product standard published for 8 years ... that are rumoured not to be "effective"?

    Well isn't that the situation we find ourselves in with BS 7288? (RCD sockets - but not effective enough to be recognised by BS 7671)

    No, this is a completely different situation - BS 7288 precludes itself within both its scope and introduction. Sort of shooting itself in its own foot as it were, by stating upstream protection should already be provided in the installation. Having said that, I'm not sure that was intentional.

    Basically, people are questioning the technical content of EN 62606, but BS 7288 states its scope clearly itself !

Community Rules & Guidelines