This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Summary of Condition of Installation

"Detached 2 story property is approximately 30-40 years old and has PVC fixtures and fittings throughout. Separate from the property is a garage which was tested also. Some defects were found and these have been attended to by the Electrician"

The above comment was all that was inserted under the summary section of an EICR relating to a large property which also has a a swimming pool. Reason for report; property being sold.

Now I am not deriding the contractor as there is no encouragement on the template EICR in Appendix 6 to be more expansive. The space allocation for the summary is only a couple of lines. Even looking at the example given in the new GN3 on page 164, for a non-technical recipient, the comment made there could be filed under chocolate fire guards. 

Communicating a succinct, meaningful comment to a client can be difficult, even for those with wordsmith capabilities. Apart from conveying a summary, I have also noticed that many comments made are poorly constructed with grammar and spelling at a low level. For those reading the report who may have a more academic background but no technical understanding of electrical installations, it must call the quality of the whole report into question. It certainly does nothing for the esteem of the electrical installation industry! 

Perhaps the summary section should be dumped. It's either satisfactory or not and if not the comments can elucidate on why not!  

  • The forum site is broken and is playing silly ruggers.

    Z.

  • .But it's all relative, and I think that they both had a firm grasp on mathematics and language.

    Well, certainly Einstein thought it was relative, and Newton wrote his Principia Mathematica in academic Latin of the time. Newton was reportedly excellent at languages and grammar, and even invented his own languages and codes, as well as a new part of the language of mathematics.

    Einstein was reportedly not good at Latin, and there are various snippets that he may not have been good at languages generally, although the truth of the matter may be something very different!

    I think, though, perhaps both of these giants had excellent insights into the language of mathematics itself.

  • He equals emcy squared as we says up norf

  • Einstein's German is a very easy read - rather like Feynmann's English, he communicates the key principles first, and then goes back to colour in so to speak, much as you would in a normal conversation.

    Among German Academics of the period that is quite rare, Lorenz or Sommerfeld are both a lot harder going. It is his mother tongue, and the language in which most of his work is written.  I understand he studied French and Latin at school and never really enjoyed it, and also spoke some Italian that he picked up while there as a child.

    He only took up English to any extent in his 50s when he moved to the States, and while he could get along in spoken English, he apparently relied heavily on secretarial staff to tidy things up if there was a document or letter or whatever which was especially important, sometimes even writing a German version as well to be translated  rather  than risk a mis-understanding.

    I do not consider that unreasonably below par - I'd get someone to check my German, and probably also my English, if it was for a significant publication.

    The key here is to know what you can and cannot do well, and behave accordingly so folk do not need to suffer the latter, especially if they are paying for it.

    Mike

  • Or "eebygum emcy squared innit." As they say in Gilling East.

    Z.

  • Well, the Open University seems to think that engineers need to be able to write good academic English. I am just coming to the end of a module and one of the questions in the final assignment allocates 5 marks (out of 100 in all) for just getting the grammar, spelling, and punctuation correct. If you don't know how to do it, MS Word will do it for you.

  • “It appears that the earth spike has been concreated over below the drive way”

    “Both consomer units are showing signs of corosion”

    Both above on a hand-written EICR which, in my opinion, was otherwise a very well constructed report. I know the author and I have no doubt about his technical capabilities.
    My own spelling and grammar can sometimes be below par but that is why I use MS Word with the check facility. 
    However, I just feel this sloppy sort of thing let’s the side down. I am with Mapj on this in that if you know your spelling and grammar is weak, get it checked before issuing the report!

  • By the way, it would not be reasonable for me to say under what circumstances I am reviewing these reports. Safe to say that it is in a professional capacity and I see sufficient in number from a variety of sources to conclude that there are significant technical issues often compounded by issues of spelling, grammar and clarity. 

  • When I did the City and Guilds carpentry craft course forty-eight years ago, I had to do "General studies", I also had to do it again when I did the C&G Construction Technicians course forty-six years ago, this included writing letters and similar exercises.

    When I did the City and Guilds 2360 twenty-two years ago there was some General Studies sessions, but it was very limited compared with what I had done twenty years before hand. 

    What, if any, General Studies are included in the syllabus of the current electrical training courses?

  • hah. I remember during my apprenticeship (70s) we did "Liberal Studies" on the college day release course maybe same thing. We did, Drama, Art, Pottery and other such daft subjects