"so I'm not sure why the discussion keeps going round and round to be honest" (gkenyon)

of course it does the above because installers keep chucking it in as fixed installation power circuits and as in the case I referred, there is no mention on the paper work.  

if there is none of the 'conformity' recorded (as gkenyon mentioned), or any comment for that matter, then just out of interest, what view and approach would 'you' take please,  if you encountered it when inspecting re: to BS7671  ?

e.g. "although there is nothing mentioned anywhere and braid not temrinated...it looks ok, it smells ok, so it is ok"  :-)

edit: to add, encountering it where the cable has been installed as a low voltage fixed install power circuit (protected by an mcb)

I wonder why it is that the manufacturers of these cables haven't created a standard that they can then claim compliance with.

In most industries, if you want a standard for your product, you get together with other manufacturers, agree what constitutes a compliant product, write that as a standard, and submit it to a recognised standards organisation.  You don't wait for someone else to do it for you.

psychicwarrior said:

if there is none of the 'conformity' recorded (as gkenyon mentioned), or any comment for that matter, then just out of interest, what view and approach would 'you' take please,  if you encountered it when inspecting re: to BS7671  ?

The object of EICR is not to provide a list of compliance issues with the current Edition of BS 7671. The purposes of the periodic inspection & test  is outlined in Regulations 651.1 and 651.3. It is only necessary to list non-compliances with requirements of BS 7671 that give rise to danger.

OK, so one of the problems with SY/CY/YY is that you can't always tell whether it's the power or auxiliary type of cable that's installed if there's nothing marked on the outer sheath - but surely if there is no evidence of 'danger', or issues that might give rise to danger, then that's a Limitation which can be noted?

What happens when inspectors come across other cable types (e.g. PVC/PVC flexible cable) with no markings on the sheath to indicate the manufacturer, CSA actual standard of the cable, its construction, or BASEC approval etc.? Do we just ignore that (constructional standards for cables have required marking for a very long time)?

psychicwarrior said:

edit: to add, encountering it where the cable has been installed as a low voltage fixed install power circuit (protected by an mcb)

Again, similar approach to other unmarked cables supplied from a protective device ... what happens there?

Usually, there is a suitable alternative for circuits within the scope of BS 7671,

I'm not so sure - these days BS 7671 covers a lot more than just fixed/rigid installations and I can imagine a few situations where both flexibility and metal covering would be useful. The last time I saw SY used was to supply the "crusher skips" at my local recycling centre - as the skips are regularly unplugged and moved about flex is certainly needed and given the environment where Joe public is regularly carrying (& dropping) all sorts of items including sharp ends of scrap metal an earthed metal covering in the flex seems pretty sensible to me.

As far as actual safety is concerned - which I think boils more down to the laws of physics rather than words on paper - what's the difference between a power circuit and a control/auxiliary circuit? OPDs are likely to be similar, PFC ditto, if anything an an industrial control circuit is less likely to have RCD protection than a final power circuit. If it's deemed to be safe on one, how come it's a potential problem on the other?

   - Andy.

AJJewsbury said:

The last time I saw SY used was to supply the "crusher skips" at my local recycling centre - as the skips are regularly unplugged and moved about flex is certainly needed and given the environment where Joe public is regularly carrying (& dropping) all sorts of items including sharp ends of scrap metal an earthed metal covering in the flex seems pretty sensible to me.

Oh dear ... SY cable is not usually suitable for outdoor use AFAIK, so that's also potentially no good either. However, probably outside the scope of BS 7671 because the skip would be Machinery as defined in the Regulations, BS 7671 stopping at a socket-outlet would be my recommendation?

I've seen this type of arrangement with mobile and transportable units before, and it's problematic when the cable sits in a puddle ... and perhaps doesn't need saying that often the braid is left not terminated at either end on occasion! Certainly, not easy to terminate in BS EN IEC 60309 plugs and free outlets.

If not, I think discussed at length above, SY is not usually considered to provide any more mechanical protection than other cable types - the issue being that there is no constructional standard in any case, so not always something you can rely on for mechanical protection?

Yes, this type of application does require something special - perhaps an industrial connecting lead with metal conduit, similar to that used with Electrak tap-offs (but suitable for outdoor use) might be appropriate?

AJJewsbury said:

As far as actual safety is concerned - which I think boils more down to the laws of physics rather than words on paper - what's the difference between a power circuit and a control/auxiliary circuit? OPDs are likely to be similar, PFC ditto, if anything an an industrial control circuit is less likely to have RCD protection than a final power circuit. If it's deemed to be safe on one, how come it's a potential problem on the other?

Good points ... quite likely impulse withstand according to IEC 60664-1 and rigour of testing (depending on the particular constructional standard) is the answer ... but that is a question for product standards and the standards for guidance for use of cables etc. ... and again not specifically BS 7671.

re:non visible markings ... there are plenty of cables where it is not possible to see what's written on it for one reason or another.

in those cases, folk just 'guess' (ok use a bit of experience with it) one supposes ...  i dont know what others do, so what would you do please ?

in the case i noted,  it was a recent-ish EIC, so one would have thought that the designer  was happy to take responsibility for it... even though no note of it on the paper work, so must have thought no issue to use.

psychicwarrior said:

in those cases, folk just 'guess' (ok use a bit of experience with it) one supposes ...  i dont know what others do, so what would you do please ?

Well, as I intimated earlier, it's perhaps a limitation. If there is no evidence of overheating, deterioration, cable damage, the conductors are insulated (and if appropriate sheathed) as necessary, or there is no other safety issue, and the loop impedances appear to be met, I guess all you could (should) do is note the limitation.

Same really as you'd do for a cable in a much older installation, from a time where there were no standards for cables, or the standards have now been withdrawn.

As you say, experience is what's needed here - and a little pragmatism based on the fact there are other circumstances where products are used in (perhaps safe) installations before 511 in its present form appeared in the 'Regs'.

psychicwarrior said:

in the case i noted,  it was a recent-ish EIC, so one would have thought that the designer  was happy to take responsibility for it... even though no note of it on the paper work, so must have thought no issue to use.

Interesting assumption, when it appears the requirements of BS 7671 may not have been met? Under those circumstances, there are other assumptions one could make?

"...Interesting assumption, when it appears ..."

what's an alternative take on it then ... the designer is unlikely to have consciously used it knowing it was unacceptable ... or would they !     Maybe I'm not sure what you are inferring.

psychicwarrior said:

Maybe I'm not sure what you are inferring.

Only that, as in your last post, there are a number of possible reasons everything's not as it should be, for example:

• made a conscious decision, but not aware of the BS 7671 requirement to document
• made a conscious decision, but actively ignored the BS 7671 requirement to document
• selected the cable with the best intentions, but not aware of the BS 7671 requirements for standards
• selected the cable with the best intentions, but ignored the BS 7671 requirements for standards
• there was a very good reason to select the cable, and under those circumstances, thought it was OTT to document
• the designer signing the design section of the EIC wasn't the person who selected the cable, and somehow wasn't aware of its presence
• etc, etc., etc

In reality, there are many reasons why it might have happened, and I'm not going to assume anything, because some of those reasons may unfairly target criticism where none is warranted (or simply, a mistake was made ... and, if it's not dangerous, why worry overly about it?).