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

This what the 'Departures' box is for on the certificate. Unlike RCDs, there is no evidence that these things actually work, nor is there any regime in place to monitor their alleged effectiveness or otherwise. Until any of this changes,I shall refuse to the fit things. They stink of snake oil to me.

You may wish to watch this excellent item on the subject.

www.youtube.com/watch

Your likely correct and I agree with your sentiments, however in court you have to ultimately consider yourself as in precarious position against the underwriting elite 

whjohnson said:

This what the 'Departures' box is for on the certificate.

You are already now on the back foot. 'Departures' from BS EN 7671 suggests that you are conforming to another set of regulations.

As an aside, I'm still strugggling with the responsibility of the PIR (EICR) checklist demarkation zone for 'External condition of intake equipment'

Well, since there is no regime set up to determine the actual effectiveness or otherwise of these things, then we'll never know what may or may not have been prevented upon the deliberate omission of said item will we?

Where will the burden of proof fall? How can they claim without reasonable doubt that a AFDD would actually have saved the day somewhere when they are not measuring and recording? It's hard enough getting hold of reliable stats for fires of all courses, let alone the absence of a AFDD

whjohnson said:

Well, since there is no regime set up to determine the actual effectiveness or otherwise of these things, then we'll never know what may or may not have been prevented upon the deliberate omission of said item will we?

Hang on !!! A standard for these devices exists (BS EN 62606).

Comments that the product standard did not "determine the actual effectiveness of these things" could have been submitted in response to the drafts for public comment on that standard.

There has been an opportunity to do so at least 4 times in the UK - the standard was published originally (after DPC) in 2013, Amendment 1 was published (after DPC) in 2017, and the latest DPCs were 2019 and 2021.

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

If an incident is believed to have been caused by a fault that could have been prevented (note, that doesn't even mean it would have been prevented), then it would be very difficult to show that not complying with 7671 was reasonable.

A requirement published in a standard (to use a device that is covered by another standard) would be accepted by a court as being "reasonably practicable best-practice". You would need to be able to demonstrate (by the production of documentary evidence) that what was put in place (or not) was at least as good.

Just because something passes a standard, it doesn't mean it does anything useful.  All it shows is that it meets the requirements of that standard.

That's especially true if the tests described in the standard were written by the manufacturers of the things being tested.

That is a common situation - there are loads of BSi documents and Euro-norms and other 'standards' for things that no-one takes a blind bit of notice of, and a few that even get withdrawn as being completely unsatisfactory after release - for a good example of the latter look at the EMC standards for power line comms that conflict with the CISPR emissions limits...

The problem is they are written in a bubble, with large contributions from a few key individuals, who may be sponsored by companies  with an agenda to sell a particular product  or service where  they have intellectual properties , and only once released does the effect become evident to folk who did not even know the document was even being created.

Very few folk look have the resources to review everything being drafted on the off-chance it may affect them at some point in the future.  It might be nice if the BSi was able to interconnect various committees better than it does, and it would also be better if the process was generally more open to scrutiny, more as it is for telecom standards, but that would adversely affect the revenue stream.

Mike.

That is a common situation - there are loads of BSi documents and Euro-norms and other 'standards' for things that no-one takes a blind bit of notice of, and a few that even get withdrawn as being completely unsatisfactory after release - for a good example of the latter look at the EMC standards for power line comms that conflict with the CISPR emissions limits...

The problem is they are written in a bubble, with large contributions from a few key individuals, who may be sponsored by companies  with an agenda to sell a particular product  or service where  they have intellectual properties , and only once released does the effect become evident to folk who did not even know the document was even being created.

Very few folk look have the resources to review everything being drafted on the off-chance it may affect them at some point in the future.  It might be nice if the BSi was able to interconnect various committees better than it does, and it would also be better if the process was generally more open to scrutiny, more as it is for telecom standards, but that would adversely affect the revenue stream.

Mike.