People using the Yellow/Green core in flex as a live conducter!

[JohnW2]

Why won't you do it, or advise that it be done, if it is compliant and you consider it good workmanship?

Because I do not personally think that it should be compliant.

However, I would never accuse someone of "bad workmanship" solely for doing something that the regs said they may do, even if I don't personally think the regs should really say that. As you so often remind us, we have no choice but to accept what the regs "actually say", even if we don't agree with what they say.

I thought we had agreed to disagree?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We agree that we disagree.

I wish we did not agree to disagree.

I wish you did not have such low standards that you see nothing wrong in someone egregiously engaging in highly undesirable bad practice. I wish that you did not agree that someone purposely and unnecessarily and therefore unreasonably using highly undesirable bad practices was exercising reasonable skill and care.

 

[John D v2.0]

when he could just as well have not.

How do you know? My issue is if the cable was already in place, or it was Sunday, or the wholesaler don't havea cable with more cores, could be many reasons.

wish you did not have such low standards that you see nothing wrong in someone egregiously engaging in highly undesirable bad practice. I wish that you did not agree that someone purposely and unnecessarily and therefore unreasonably using highly undesirable bad practices was exercising reasonable skill and care.

Oh really, must be a tough time carrying the weight of the world in your shoulders! That comment really takes the biscuit! You are such a manipulator.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

How do you know? My issue is if the cable was already in place,

Imagine someone repurposing a cable already installed. I would have no problem with the suggestion that it would be reasonable to oversleeve, and unreasonable to cut a new chase through meters of nicely decorated walls just to avoid it.

or it was Sunday, or the wholesaler don't havea cable with more cores, could be many reasons.

The very first thing I said on this was

I would regard it as a contravention unless there was no reasonable alternative.

And subsequently:

Please note I did say "unless there was no reasonable alternative". If there was a reasonable alternative, such as using a 4-core flex, but you just CBA to do that, I would have no hesitation in saying that using 3-core because you CBA was neither good workmanship nor the use of proper materials.

So when you factor in "reasonable alternative", when you factor in it being done when the installer could easily have not done it but did it because he simply CBA to not do it then no, it absolutely was not "good workmanship".

Using 3-core flex when you could just as easily have used 4-core, but simply CBA, is clearly poor workmanship.

I believe that gratuitous bad practice, bad practice done for no good reason, bad practice done when it could easily have been avoided, is not something which counts as good workmanship. It is something which I do not believe qualifies as exercising reasonable skill and care.

Imagine someone installing some cable, and he has 3-core to hand, but his reel of 4-core is on the other side of the room. He thinks "No, I'm not bothering to walk 3m over there and 3m back to avoid doing something which is bad practice". I don't believe that is the behaviour of a good workman. I do not believe it is an exercise of reasonable skill and care.

poor workmanship to deliberately do something confusing and highly undesirable when it could reasonably have been avoided.

my position is that the fact that it is highly undesirable means that doing it when it could reasonably have been avoided is not good workmanship.

someone deliberately choosing to do something highly undesirable and confusing when they could perfectly well have not done that has exhibited poor workmanship.

All along I have shown that I accept that it might have been a reasonable thing to do, and all along my objection to it has been when it was not a reasonable thing to do.


What about deliberately designing it like it? Nothing to do with an existing cable in place, nothing to do with a Sunday, nothing to do with being unable to obtain the "right" cable, and everything to do with a designer consciously choosing to put a highly undesirable bad practice into his design?

 

[John D v2.0]

You said """when he could just as well have not."""
Then I said """how do you know"""... whether he could just as well have not, (when you probably came along after the fact.)


So how do you know when you find that it's happened whether it was reasonable for the original installer to have used that cable. Not how do you know at the time when you put the cable in service as a live conductor.

Just to add more fuel to the fire for safety you might as well either allow it or not.
In many ways, the safest thing if you don't want to specifically disallow it, would be to mandate that every installation had to have at least once occurrence so that everyone is used to the existence of it. Recommending against it makes it all the more surprising when it ends up being the only reasonable thing.
So personally that suggests it's better to consider it good workmanship.

 

[John D v2.0]

Or perhaps what you really mean is good workmanship is something that you do, but afterwards no one knows whether it was good or not?
Kind of a philosophical electrician

 

[JohnW2]

I wish you did not have such low standards that you see nothing wrong in someone egregiously engaging in highly undesirable bad practice.

I see something wrong in the regulations to which someone has to work allowing something which at least some people regard as a highly undesirable bad practice.

However, I find it far more difficult to criticise someone for doing something which is clearly allowed by the regulations to which they have to work.

Aircraft have crashed because pilots have dutifully followed the (clearly 'wrong', with the benefit of hindsight) 'checklists' which they are expected to follow. Do we then blame the pilot for the crash?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So how do you know when you find that it's happened whether it was reasonable for the original installer to have used that cable. Not how do you know at the time when you put the cable in service as a live conductor.

You may well not be able to.

Just as in life in general there are countless situations where you don't know whether what someone did was reasonable when all you can see is the end result. Sometimes there are investigations which establish whether or not the actions someone took were, or were not, reasonable. A few weeks ago I went through a red light, because I judged it was safe to do so and because to not do so would have made an ambulance on an emergency have to stop and wait. I was confident that any investigation would exonerate me.

But I don't see why, if you are able to determine whether what someone did was reasonable or not, you cannot say "I would regard it as a contravention unless there was no reasonable alternative."

It's all about professional standards, professional judgement. The criteria of reasonable skill and care, and belief, are present in every EIC/MEWIC, and if in their professional judgement someone believes that another person has not exercised reasonable skill and care then they are perfectly within their rights to say so. Arguably they must say so.

And just as if someone considers something bad practice and therefore would not advise it be done, or even actively advise it not be done, they are perfectly within their rights to argue the case that it can be poor workmanship.

I think it quite telling that nobody is prepared to answer the question about the designer, nobody is prepared to address the situation where someone is not constrained by any realities of existing cables, what's on the van, where the nearest "correct" cable is, how hard it is to obtain, etc, but simply sits at his desk and gratuitously specifies that a highly undesirable bad practice be done.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I see something wrong in the regulations to which someone has to work allowing something which at least some people regard as a highly undesirable bad practice.

Indeed. Undesirable and bad enough to actually be dangerous when combined with lack of necessary attention by someone later down the line. One may say "yes but people are supposed to pay attention", which is quite true, but it's also true to say that there are countless examples of measures put in place which are solely to mitigate the risks from people not doing it.

Aircraft have crashed because pilots have dutifully followed the (clearly 'wrong', with the benefit of hindsight) 'checklists' which they are expected to follow. Do we then blame the pilot for the crash?

(As an aside, sometimes we do, but that's another issue.) That's a flawed analogy, as in this case we are not considering something found out in hindsight to be wrong, we're considering something known, or believed to be, wrong in advance.

 

[JohnW2]

That's a flawed analogy, as in this case we are not considering something found out in hindsight to be wrong, we're considering something known, or believed to be, wrong in advance.

I'm not so sure that it's a flawed analogy.

Although it may be the case that it was only with the benefit of hindsight that those who wrote the checklists/procedures (c.f. those who wrote BS7671) came to realise that what they had written was 'wrong', just as with BS7671, they presumably thought that it was 'right' when they wrote it, even if others (like you and myself in relation to BS7671) considered it to be 'wrong' even before the authors subsequently 'came to realise' the same thing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

A few weeks ago I went through a red light, because I judged it was safe to do so and because to not do so would have made an ambulance on an emergency have to stop and wait. I was confident that any investigation would exonerate me.

I too have done much the same - lights on red, "blues and twos" coming up behind, choice of either waiting and holding it up or crossing the white line and pulling into the other lane to let it past. Like you, I consider it the logical and ethical thing to do - but in law, there isn't actually any defence should TPTB decide to prosecute. I would expect that those responsible would use discretion and drop any charges, but there is nothing in law to protect you.
In the aviation world it is different. There is a "catch all" rule to cover departures from the regulations "if required for saving life", with a proviso that the pilot must report the incident promptly to the authorities.

 

[JohnW2]

I think it quite telling that nobody is prepared to answer the question about the designer, nobody is prepared to address the situation where someone is not constrained by any realities of existing cables, what's on the van, where the nearest "correct" cable is, how hard it is to obtain, etc, but simply sits at his desk and gratuitously specifies that a highly undesirable bad practice be done.

Well, for a start, I find it very hard to believe that any designer would "sit at his desk" and specify that an over-sleeved G/Y conductor should be used as a live conductor.

However, that does not alter the point that, even if someone did do that, I think that, personal opinions aside, it would be difficult to conclude that what he has specified was a "highly undesirable bad practice" if it were clearly a practice that was allowed by the regulations to which he was expected to work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[333rocky333]

Heres one for you, regardless of what the regs say, you get called to a job and the photocells faulty, you find it wired in 3 core flex, 25 foot up in the cold about a metre long brown tape over the core concerned both ends, you have 4 core on the van and a ladder would you, just change the photocell head on the old wire or would you replace the cable.

[GALLERY=media, 100955]Screenshot_2018-01-11-22-36-12 by 333rocky333 posted 11 Jan 2018 at 10:48 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[JohnW2]

Heres one for you, regardless of what the regs say, you get called to a job and the photocells faulty, you find it wired in 3 core flex, 25 foot up in the cold about a metre long brown tape over the core concerned both ends, you have 4 core on the van and a ladder would you, just change the photocell head on the old wire or would you replace the cable.

Given that it is 'allowed', it isn't really a case of "regardless of regulations"!

However, where are these one metre lengths of 'single insulated' cores (I presume the brown tape doesn't count as a 'sheath'!) - suitably 'protected', I trust?

Kind Regards, John

 

[333rocky333]

Given that it is 'allowed', it isn't really a case of "regardless of regulations"!

However, where are these one metre lengths of 'single insulated' cores (I presume the brown tape doesn't count as a 'sheath'!) - suitably 'protected', I trust?

Kind Regards, John

Its 3 core flex from the photocell to the box