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

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 24 replies
  • Subscribers 45 subscribers
  • Views 4342 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

CHANGES IN AMD 2 RELUCTANCE TO COMPLY

John Peckham

I heard before AMD 2 that compliance with the requirement to install AFDDs where required would stop clients having consumer units upgraded due to the additional cost. 

The requirement to fit as a "shall" is limited to 4 types of installation has anyone experienced a refusal to upgrade the installation with AFDDs when replacing a consumer unit?

Also has anyone experienced any reluctance when upgrading an installation where SPDs are required under the new provisions of AMD 2?

The same question as above, any reluctance to install smoke detectors in domestic premises where an SPD needs to be fitted to the circuit supply the smoke detectors?

Thanks

JP

 

Parents
  • 0

    I really don't like the use of T&E with the c.p.c. earthed before the first working RCD (if that's how is it) - just one layer of insulation between L and the whole installation's metalwork being permanently live....

       - Andy.

  • 0 in reply to AJJewsbury

    yes it would be safer in that regard with the CPC cut back at both ends, and I hope its route is ether visible or deeply inaccessible.  The best would probably be to make that VOELCB an RCD of some kind.

    Depending on the cable route for the TnE  to meet regs you might be stuck with a rather unsatisfactory arrangement of cascaded 30mA instants . IF one had a clear slate, a  100mA delay type in a DIN box and the submain run in SWA might be better but I'm not sure how much is truly an immediate danger or just miles off best practice.

    Mike.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to AJJewsbury

    yes it would be safer in that regard with the CPC cut back at both ends, and I hope its route is ether visible or deeply inaccessible.  The best would probably be to make that VOELCB an RCD of some kind.

    Depending on the cable route for the TnE  to meet regs you might be stuck with a rather unsatisfactory arrangement of cascaded 30mA instants . IF one had a clear slate, a  100mA delay type in a DIN box and the submain run in SWA might be better but I'm not sure how much is truly an immediate danger or just miles off best practice.

    Mike.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines