Clearly the person who stated that has no idea of the requirements of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 and safe isolation procedures and the use of appropriate test equipment. They are not a competent person and should no be working on electrical systems unless under direct supervision of a competent person. Also the employer of this person does not appear to have a Safe System of Work derived from a Risk Assessment and Method Statement as required by the Management of Health and Safety at Work regulations 1999.

I would suggest Roland if you are in the UK you would be liable to be prosecuted for you failure to comply with your Statutory Duties.

John Peckham

I think you have blown things out of proportion by making assumptions. 

Firstly, both my company and the contractor's company require work permits, method statements, risk assessments and a work order is the signed once the task is established and necessary isolations have been performed. So no, neither the contractor or I can be prosecuted.

These are strictly monitored by the Health and Safety Managers as well as Engineering Managers to strictly abide by the legal UK regulations, this is a short post not going into detail of legalities so I'm unsure where you've arrived to these far fetched conclusions/assumptions.

The debate was simply regarding a theoretical question about motors, not regulations which you have assumed have been broken which they have not.

Rules and permits aside UK or abroad, I'd not be happy letting someone open any box that had terminals in it, if he thought that seeing a motor was not spinning was the same as ensuring it was safe to work on.

It just isn't any guarantee of anything at all. After all how do we know it is not going to power on at any moment, or the motor itself may be broken but the power going to it is on.

Anyone working in the box with the wiring in it,  should be confirming electrically that the power really has gone off when they get to the roof, just for the day that either the wrong switch was isolated or the wrong roof wiring box has been opened.

It may never have happened to him yet, but the day it does may be the last.

There are a few choice words for folk who have this sort of attitude.

Mike

Once again I think you're missing the point of the post and going into irrelevant semantics. We DO know the motor will not be powered because we literally isolated it as per company and legal procedure with the necessary isolator and rotary supply breaker (lock, key, tag).

The point of the post is just to debate motor theory and point out other scenarios where a motor could not run whilst still having voltage applied. All necessary rules, permits, isolations, confirmations etc etc etc have been performed by qualified people who actually do this job day in day out so I'm unsure where these unwarranted assumptions are coming from.

The point of the post is just to debate motor theory and point out other scenarios where a motor could not run whilst still having voltage applied. All necessary rules, permits, isolations, confirmations etc etc etc have been performed by qualified people who actually do this job day in day out so I'm unsure where these unwarranted assumptions are coming from.

because you said they were relying on looking at the motor spinning. Which as others have also said, is a really bad idea..

"the contractor said he doesn't need to because if the motor "running" then that means there's no voltage."

then ....."before I let him do his thing"

That first  statement, I'm afraid puts that contractor in the 'dangerous and foolish' category.

The second statement means you did not stop him, and arguably you could  then be partly to blame if it goes wrong.

However, there is probably no need to agree with him if you have the keys.

In your shoes, unless he was 6 foot tall and intimidating, I would not have 'let him do his thing' un-checked,  - even  if he thought it should be tested or not.

Mike.

I never said he is RELYING on looking at the motor spinning, the necessary isolation and confirmation was performed by me in the panel. However, I said he claimed that the motor not spinning means there is no voltage for the purpose of the theoretical debate (which does happen but its the purpose of discussion).

I said I let him do his thing because I had already done any work orders with the legal and safety requirements so I was safe to do so and not because he was 6ft since I'm much bigger than that anyways, intimidation doesn't work in a work place anyways though.

Perhaps I should have been clearer, however, once again that wasn't the point of the discussio hence why I never felt the need to excessively point out rules and regulations (as well as safety) were followed.

So just to clarify, all isolations were done, confirmed and signed so it was legally and realistically safe to work on, the conversation between me and him about the motor popped up AFTER the safety of the task was established and he did not need to test it, however, I still ask people do so as anything could happen, and even if I isolate something myself, I still test it just in case prior to touching which may seem pedantic, however, there have been times when human error comes into play as well.

This statement caused me concern.

"Despite ensuring safety, I still always request the contractors perform a quick voltage test before touching any wiring, however, the contractor said he doesn't need to because if the motor "running" then that means there's no voltage. We debates this for a while before I let him do his thing."

Also you having to ask this question when this is a basic task for anyone managing electrical safety?

JP

OK - that is rather better than it appeared to be at first.

. Even so if he really does think like that, then his appreciation of possible failure mechanisms, both failures of wiring and motors and failures of the human checking and processes of turning things off,  is poor and a bit worrying, especially if he claims to be an electrical  contractor..

I wonder what he does in other places.

Mike.

My thoughts exactly.

I can see why you made such an assumption, however, I did specify in the first part "ensuring all safety" which I would've thought was enough without needing to go into derail. 

I asked this question because it was a contractor and as it stands I don't trust contractors because there is no way of me being certain this person is intelligent enough to not hurt himself as has been the case with contractors in the past doing silly things.