My understanding (which may well be incomplete or wrong) is that the standard's tests for AFDDs work on the assumption that once there is a break in a cable which causes intermittent arcing, the arcing chars some of the insulation over time, and the carbon makes future arcing easier. So the tests are with carbon rods. A lot of the youtube tests try to create arcs with small copper to copper gaps, which tend not to last more than a second or two, and may be seen by the AFDD as a motor-type spark and not trigger a disconnect.

So when a youtuber shows an AFDD failing to disconnect, it may be that the AFDD is actually working correctly. Or it may be being completely useless. Or the standard isn't up to scratch. We can't tell from the video.

You may find the more recent German changes informative also.

https://www.handwerksblatt.de/themen-specials/hitzige-debatte-um-brandschutzschalter/neue-regelung-fur-brandschutzschalter

To save you some translation effort. I attach the google translation below.

Also on other fora the general fermentation is that it is a victory for common sense, as now German electricians are free to do an RA to see if they need AFDD in a particular situation or not.  Reading between the lines, I think that many will now be deciding 'not' unless it is wiring for a  fuel dump or an art gallery..

regards Mike.

"

Well, judging by that, it seems that good old engineering common sense has prevailed over the marketing hype for once, and about time too.

Since JPLE64 or whatever they call themselves, seem to have cross border involvement, I wonder why back in Jan 2020, if they were aware of this debacle and subsequent DIN reform at the time, they didn't take it into consideration before mandating AFDDs into BS7671?

Maybe Grenfell, to say "We are doing something?"

Even though it seems to be an appliance that caused the initial fire. Anyone who takes an appliance apart knows they are made to a (low) price point. Their moulded plugs are rubbish, the connections inside are tiny and loose. Yet they get away with it.

Same with the plastic consumer units that were catching fire, but, we know,they couldnt catch fire, as the BS stated it should be made of self extinguishing or non-flammable plastic.But some did not meet the Standard, some Makers were making flammable plastic CUs.

But the Electricians got the blame for loose connections (yes, there were some), and the CU makers didnt get taken to Court for supplying Goods that didnt meet the British Standard they were supposedly tested and certified for. And of course, the Makers then got more income, as metal CUs were called for in high risk places, so , what should have been a perfectly good plastic CU was changed due to the Manufacturers bypassing the Rules, and then they made more money because of that. Cynical, me?

Do JPEL64 publish the minutes to their meetings or could we request the minutes to the meeting where AFDD were discussed and then mandated into BS7671.  If JPEL64, BSI and IET  were aware of what was going on in Germany they could have used the word recommend rather than the world shall.  After all the BS7671 has a definitions section that state what they mean when using the word shall.

We've been there before in another thread.

engx.theiet.org/.../afdds---when-do-they-work

I would urge you to have a look at who sits on the wiring regs committee to find your answers.

Mr Savoury has published another rather humorous Hager AFDD update -

www.youtube.com/watch

Good points well made. Take a look at Mr Savoury's latest youtube missive on the AFDD subject linked above - he makes the point that Hager have, by making their devices firmware updatable, transferred the risk onto any installer who does not keep a keen eye out for any future firmware updates. Basically, you install a few hundred of these across several sites over several years and you are the one responsible if a fire or fatality results as a consequence of you not keenly monitoring and ensuring that every device you install has been updated, so it looks like a lot of tyre wear and diesel consumption for those foolhardly enough to purchase/specify Hager AFDDs both now and in future.No other manufacturer imposes this at present.

I wonder how often the firmware is updated? 

Would an out of date firmware be a C3 on an EICR? (Does anyone here have a up to date copy of code breaker?)

Does the firmware revision need to be checked on the EICR, manufactures instruction seem to lean this way?

Is there a timeframe that the firmwares need to be doneby, can you jump more than one version?

If you have a 16 or 20 way CU/DB and it take 5mins to update each AFDD who will pay for this time?

Can you break the AFDD with a failed firmware update?  Years ago when I did firmware updates on a routers I would take a spare with me onsite.  Safe to say I bricked a few in my time.  To the same affect will the SPark need to carry a spare A6 B6 C6 A10 B10 C10 A20 B20 C20 D20 Hager AFDDs the list goes on.  I think the R&D team at Hager might need to have a look at this and get some imput from the electrician on the ground in the UK and not other EU countries and engineer a way forward.

Enough bashing.  Now lets help.

Hager may well have an idea with being able to upgrade the AFDD.  Fusebox found out the cost of a recall recently.

Could the CU/DB have a bolt on kit to make it internet aware or connect to the internet?  Lets call it a hub.  This hub could interogate the AFDDs in the CU/DB and then report back to the user and/or the installer.  The hub only connects to a Hager secure portal and nothing else.  As with all things on/in the internet the security side is paramount as a compromised system means it could be managed from elsewhere maybe even shut down.  The installer/user could then click the button for a firmware update.  There is a caveat, no load must be connected to the AFDD during the upgrade. 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - why make it way more complicated than it need be? And more pertinently, who will pay for the time and wear and tear for the travel to site every time a firmware update is issued?

Just don't buy Hager, just buy a different brand until they drop their crazy irresponsible ideas about making everything have to connect to the internet. There is no need if the product is designed properly from the start - Other brands don't have to have web connectivity.

What one man can do, another can undo, the web can never be totally secure.

The Saga continues.  David at DSES has done another follow up video on AFDD.  It is well worth a watch. 

The Saga continues.  David at DSES has done another follow up video on AFDD.  It is well worth a watch. 

This one 

note that, as  with all Dave Savery Videos ,his language is not suitable for those of a sensitive disposition,
or minors, or indeed any one  who works underground.

Putting that to one side, and the fact it is rather long,  technically I find the content is fascinating, if quite worrying.
'Nothing wrong with relying solely on inadeqauetly tested software'  has not panned out well for the Post Office or  Fujitsu recently, and I think  it may not do so for Hagar either.

Mike.

Hi Mike

Thats the video yes.  The language is colourful but I think the facts he brings up are very valid.  Like the Hagar test device that goes in the CU.  The fact there is still no firmware update despite the fact that people are reporting issues to Hagar.

Should a fire arise from a Hagar AFDD not working correctly there will need to be a firmware update rolls out or possible a factury recall of all their (Smart) AFDD devices.

Should a fire arise from a Hagar AFDD not working correctly there will need to be a firmware update rolls out or possible a factury recall of all their (Smart) AFDD devices.

I suspect that'll never happen - after all how could anyone demonstrate that the fire would really have been prevented if the AFDD had behaved differently? The fire may have been started by simple resistive heating at a bad joint or a conductor thinned by damage m'Lud - without any significant arcing being present - which of course no AFDD could ever reasonably be expected to detect. Prove otherwise their highly paid lawyers will say.

   - Andy.

Did you watch the video Andy?  Do you think that David at DSES has some valid points about the Hagar AFDD?

I saw the earlier one, and have skimmed the latest - yes there are questions I'd like answered. These big companies though are primarily there to make money for their shareholders - recalls or similar mass updates cost a fortune, so unless their position becomes indefensible they'll not spend the money. As long as they pass the tests required by EN 62606 or whatever (which I presume they do) I'm sure their lawyers will be telling them they're on safe legal grounds, whatever a bloke with a bit of lego and brass (or carbon) fittings comes up with.

Nothing's perfect - it's reckoned around 7% of in service RCDs don't trip when the should, 'when they should' doesn't include lots situations that have residual d.c. currents - and even then there's 5% of the population that are aren't covered for shock protection.

   - Andy.

There is another follow up video from David.S at DSES on AFDDs

Titled

AFDD: Rig MK III and an all-star line up

https://youtu.be/CZtSsFBr4K8?si=tgX6ZToSZ73eV43C