we should default to installing AFDDs unless we can bring in other control measures that we are happy with in terms of safety. 

That would seem to put recommendations on almost the same footing as 'shall' requirements - after all we're permitted any departure from the regs provided 'the resulting degree of safety of the installation shall not be less than that obtained by by compliance with the regulations' (120.3).

I can't see anything in the wording or logic that demands that we need to achieve the same level of safety in some other way if we choose not to adopt a recommendation.

  - Andy.

we should default to installing AFDDs unless we can bring in other control measures that we are happy with in terms of safety. 

That would seem to put recommendations on almost the same footing as 'shall' requirements - after all we're permitted any departure from the regs provided 'the resulting degree of safety of the installation shall not be less than that obtained by by compliance with the regulations' (120.3).

I can't see anything in the wording or logic that demands that we need to achieve the same level of safety in some other way if we choose not to adopt a recommendation.

  - Andy.

Ok, to flip it on its head.  If you have been recommended to install AFDDs by BS 7671 (which is currently the case) and you did not and an issue arises.  How would you defend your decision?  I would be happy to defend my non-use of them if I chose and this could just be an assessment of the risk and cost.  Just dismissing them because they are 'only' recommended' is exactly what the new description is trying to make clear is not supposed to be happening in my opinion.

The fact that the new table on what recommended means has caused more confusion is unfortunate. 

The defence would be that the customer would not pay for them so I could not supply and fit them.

Z.