ELECTRICIAN GIVEN TWO YEAR SUSPENDED SENTENCE

liveandnetural

ELECTRICIAN GIVEN TWO YEAR SUSPENDED SENTENCE
http://www.bsafeatwork.ie/electrician-given-two-year-suspended-sentence/

Mech1

Not the brightest spark.

Irish Steve

And these are the people that a householder is legally obliged to use for work in the home!

I really wonder if it should be a legal requirement under freedom of information for ECSSA and RECI to publish the number of inspections they carry out per year, and the number of disciplinaries etc they carry out as a result of those inspections, as well as the number of consumer complaints they receive.

As things stand now, the general public has no way of knowing if electricians are being correctly and adequately supervised.

chrismon

Was he registered/working for some one or a nixer?

tomdempsey200

Irish Steve wrote: »

And these are the people that a householder is legally obliged to use for work in the home!

I really wonder if it should be a legal requirement under freedom of information for ECSSA and RECI to publish the number of inspections they carry out per year, and the number of disciplinaries etc they carry out as a result of those inspections, as well as the number of consumer complaints they receive.

As things stand now, the general public has no way of knowing if electricians are being correctly and adequately supervised.

once a year when I was registered

oversight was always minimal in my experience(15yrs reci)

they've tightened up a bit lately

Sir Arthur Daley

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

oversight was always minimal in my experience(15yrs reci)
they've tightened up a bit lately

What do you mean here?

cerastes

Im not defending the defendant, but should I be suprised the judge thinks this?

He said, “We, the public know nothing about electricity and all hope that the trip switch will keep us safe”.

Steve

Hang on, did I read that right?

The sparks got a 2 year sentence for looping out a breaker even though it was totally unrelated to the death of the individual concerned?

Jesus f**king christ, the mind boggles.

Irish Steve

Steve wrote: »

Hang on, did I read that right?

The sparks got a 2 year sentence for looping out a breaker even though it was totally unrelated to the death of the individual concerned?

Jesus f**king christ, the mind boggles.

Sorry, can I be clear here, the mind boggles at (a) the stupidity of the spark, or (b) the severity of the sentence, and it's important to be 100% sure of the answer before commenting further

tomdempsey200

Steve wrote: »

Hang on, did I read that right?

The sparks got a 2 year sentence for looping out a breaker even though it was totally unrelated to the death of the individual concerned?

Jesus f**king christ, the mind boggles.

suspended..

i know lots of fools that did ...they were all useless cowboys

Steve

Irish Steve wrote: »

Sorry, can I be clear here, the mind boggles at (a) the stupidity of the spark, or (b) the severity of the sentence, and it's important to be 100% sure of the answer before commenting further

I'm not condoning looping out an RCD or any breaker, but, (b)

Yes it's appalling practice.

I'm nonetheless confused about how a judge found this relevant to the death of the person in the article.

If you die of natural causes (i.e. a heart attack) whilst running across the road, is it the bus drivers fault because you didn't make it and got run over?

Moonbeam

I thought that it was unrelated but that is why there were checks done which led to the electrician getting the sentence.

Irish Steve

OK, I will try not to bite too hard.

A registered spark is (supposedly) trained in electrics, so knows and understands the risks inherent in the use of electricity in different environments, and is specifically trained in the requirements of safety and related devices that are mandatory to protect users in an environment that can present severe hazard.

A RCD is installed into a panel to provide a protection that will disconnect the power from the system in the event that the circuit is not operating correctly, and in most cases, the technical requirement is to disconnect within 40 Milliseconds in the event that the current imbalance between the 2 conductors is greater than 30 Milliamps.

So, this exceedingly fast response to a very low current imbalance is required to prevent the possibility of a failed device or an accident where the supply cord has been cut from causing the death of an operative that has come into contact with electricity as a result of this accident or device failure. The very short time, and low current is because these are regarded as the maximum limits to avoid the heart being sent into ventricular fibrillation by the flow of AC current through the body.

In laymans terms, the RCD is the ONLY device in the panel that prevent electricity from killing a person that is in contact with a live supply as the result of some other failure or accident.

As such, by putting a bypass around the RCD, the spark was effectively passing a death sentence on anyone that had the misfortune to come into inappropriate contact with electricity.

Yes, it is that cut and dried, and unlike joe public, who might not understand or realise the implications of such a bypass, a trained spark would know EXACTLY what the implications were of his actions. The fact that he did it, and left the installation in that condition was the reason that he was prosecuted, and received a suspended sentence, CONDITIONAL ON NOT WORKING AS AN ELECTRICIAN FOR 5 YEARS,

In some respects, he got off very lightly, in that he does not have the death of an innocent worker on his hands, and is not spending time inside. The fact that he was prepared to put people at risk of death to remove an inconvenience is the real mind boggler, not that he was subsequently found guilty of the offence.

I am not at all surprised by the case, or the sentence, and I am not a registered spark. I wonder what the sentence would have been if he had been responsible for the death of a worker.

Jimdagym

Moonbeam wrote: »

I thought that it was unrelated but that is why there were checks done which led to the electrician getting the sentence.

This case actually came up at a safety meeting in my job. The two events were completely unrelated. The HSA were doing an investigation due to the death of the worker and during that investigation the looped out breaker was discovered. The electrician was prosecuted as a result of the discovery, which is really bad luck, but no more than he deserves too (IMO).

Jimdagym

Sorry, meant to quote Steve there.

Steve

I know all of that, it's not the point though.

For example, (and we can't and don't know the specifics) if the guy had - say - wired the power washer to a non RCD industrial outlet as is commonplace in this country then the outcome would have been no different.

Maybe it's just bad journalism in the linked article - in fact I'm pretty sure it is, but the death had nothing to do with what the electrician did yet it is reported as if that were the case.

Again, the fact that a breaker was bypassed was criminal, I'm not disputing that, I'm just appalled at the way it was linked to the death in this case when it's a blatant lie.

seaniefr

Well let's hope my fellow sparkies will sit up and take note! It does sound like the HSA were putting down a marker in fairness.

Irish Steve

Steve wrote: »

I know all of that, it's not the point though.

For example, (and we can't and don't know the specifics) if the guy had - say - wired the power washer to a non RCD industrial outlet as is commonplace in this country then the outcome would have been no different.

The outcome for the worker in this case would have been the same, and it wasn't related to the bypass, true. If the washer had been connected to a non RCD single socket, then the washer would not have had RCD protection, which could have been a risk, but by looping out the RCD, ALL the circuits on the panel that were downstream of the RCD were effectively dangerous, so a cut power cord on a laptop computer could have killed someone

Maybe it's just bad journalism in the linked article - in fact I'm pretty sure it is, but the death had nothing to do with what the electrician did yet it is reported as if that were the case.

It is bad journalism, but that's nothing new, and in some respects, it dilutes the gravity of the case. To coin the example of the bus, the spark's actions were the equivalent of putting a block of wood under the brake pedal of the bus, the brakes would still work to some extent, but not in the way that they were designed to, which in extreme circumstances could be a big problem.

Again, the fact that a breaker was bypassed was criminal, I'm not disputing that, I'm just appalled at the way it was linked to the death in this case when it's a blatant lie.

Fair comment, we can for sure agree on that

Steve

I agree with your post except for this part:

Irish Steve wrote: »

but by looping out the RCD, ALL the circuits on the panel were effectively dangerous, so a cut power cord on a laptop computer could have killed someone

There is no way you can know what circuits were affected by bypassing an RCD so that is pure speculation.
It may have been all or it may have been a single outlet, we cannot tell.

Irish Steve

Steve wrote: »

I agree with your post except for this part:

There is no way you can know what circuits were affected by bypassing an RCD so that is pure speculation.
It may have been all or it may have been a single outlet, we cannot tell.

OK, I will rephrase that, ALL the circuits downstream of the RCD were effectively lethal. In an industrial environment, there's no easy way to know if that's one line, or every circuit on the panel, in a domestic environment, it's a massive percentage of the outlets in the house. Edited the original post to say that,

tomdempsey200

Irish Steve wrote: »

OK, I will rephrase that, ALL the circuits downstream of the RCD were effectively lethal. In an industrial environment, there's no easy way to know if that's one line, or every circuit on the panel, in a domestic environment, it's a massive percentage of the outlets in the house.

lethal lol?
slight exaggeration

Irish Steve

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

lethal lol?
slight exaggeration

No, in a commercial environment, which this was, and things like water from a pressure washer, and possibly other risks, a fault that was not interrupted by the RCD could very easily be fatal very rapidly. Fatal, lethal, I think the phraseology is regrettably very clear. I would suggest that is why the HSE took the case to court, as someone else commented, they were clearly putting down a marker.

tomdempsey200

i worked in in industrial maintenance for years where there were little or no rcd protection

earth wires carried fault current and mcbs provided protection against 'indirect contact' for years just fine

you think everything's lethal cos there's no rcd?

Irish Steve

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

i worked in in industrial maintenance for years where there were little or no rcd protection

earth wires carried fault current and mcbs provided protection against 'indirect contact' for years just fine

you think everything's lethal cos there's no rcd?

we could split this hair for a very long time, and probably the only thing that will come out of that will be to dilute the quality of the thread.

The lastest ET101's seem to mandate RCD's or RCBO's on just about everything these days, there must be a good reason for that.

No two locations are the same, some are inherently safe, others are potentially lethal, if some other unexpected scenario happens.

That was and is the issue that was being highlighted. In the absence of another fault or issue, electricity is (99.9999% of the time) safe. It can however go from safe to lethal in a microsecond, so has to be treated with that thought in mind.

If it wasn't potentially lethal, there would be no need for RECI & ECSSA, and anyone would be allowed to work on electrical circuits

foxy farmer

Remember reading this on the Examiner when case started. Reported as if electrician was totally to blame for the mans death.. Powerwasher should have been maintained better asit was causing the nuisance tripping. RCD was doing its job until it was bypassed. After that anyone using it was taking their life in their hands. I dealt with a RECI inspector back in 97 who laughed at me for putting a30mA rcd into a circuit solely supplying an old Oxford oil cooled welder. This was on a clients premises. He said it would cause nuisance tripping. Never tripped once. Peace of mind.

keithclancy

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

i worked in in industrial maintenance for years where there were little or no rcd protection

earth wires carried fault current and mcbs provided protection against 'indirect contact' for years just fine

you think everything's lethal cos there's no rcd?

In the past there were also cases of electrocution or fires due to faulty earths. The RCD is an additional safety measure to prevent that from occurring.

Similarly people didn't wear seat belts 30 years ago and it was fine, however these days driving without belting up is seen as madness.

2 stroke

Are industrial powerwashers normally protected by rcd? I have memories of one place where I worked that suffered a lot from nuisance tripping. Problem was put down to natural leakage, and the solution was to give each machine its own rcd, except the diesel fired powerwasher that was given its own circuit.

2011

Irish Steve wrote: »

OK, I will rephrase that, ALL the circuits downstream of the RCD were effectively lethal.

This suggests that multipe sockets had no RCD protection due to this action and this may not be the case.
We simply do not have all of the facts.

Many of these power washers would use a 32A single phase socket or a 3 phase socket outlet. In a commercial or industrial installation it would be normal to have a dedicated RCD & MCB (or RCBO) for each of these types of socket outlets. So "all the circuits" downstream of the RCD is likely to be a single socket outlet. However I agree that this still does not excuse the action.

Regardless of how well an installation is wired all mains voltage circuits are "potentially lethal" and should be treated as such.

Have you ever seen how houses are wired in France or Spain? Frequently sockets have no RCD protection at all.

A RCD is installed into a panel to provide a protection that will disconnect the power from the system in the event that the circuit is not operating correctly

An RCD is designed to pick up some faults, not all. This is why it is not permitted to install an RCD without a device (such as an MCB or fuse) that will detect over current conditions such as a short circuit or overload condition.

So, this exceedingly fast response to a very low current imbalance is required to prevent the possibility of a failed device or an accident where the supply cord has been cut from causing the death of an operative that has come into contact with electricity as a result of this accident or device failure.

An properly functioning RCD will not necessarily operate when a supply cable (downstream of the device) is cut. This would only happen under certain conditions.

In laymans terms, the RCD is the ONLY device in the panel that prevent electricity from killing a person that is in contact with a live supply as the result of some other failure or accident.

I think this is very misleading. The installation of RCDs is just one method employed to make an electrical installation safer. There are other safety devices installed in distibution boards, such as fuses and MCBs.

In many cases an MCB or fuse would operate when a conductive part of an appliance to becomes live, preventing a person receiving a shock in the first place.

There are many devices (both 3 phase and single phase) in industrial installations that are not required to have RCD protection. This applies in particular to fixed equipment such as motors, lights, heaters and IT equipment. Even domestic installations there are devices that do not require RCD protection, this includes cookers and lights.

In my opinion you are giving RCD's more credit than they deserve.

RCDs have many advantages, but have been known to fail for a number of reasons including "stiction".

As such, by putting a bypass around the RCD, the spark was effectively passing a death sentence on anyone that had the misfortune to come into inappropriate contact with electricity.

Speaking as a survivor of more than one mains voltage electric shock, that statement is a gross exaggeration. Although I certainly would not recommend being electrocuted at mains voltage it generally does not result in a fatality.

Edit: My intention is not to justify the actions of the electrician in question.
I am just trying to give some perspective.

tomdempsey200

1)you have basic protection against direct contact on equipment....this has been improved over the years irrespective of rcds

2)and protection in case of a fault(indirect contact) by earthing of exposed metal


3)and lastly 'additional' protection in some cases by rcd in case of

...carelessness by users
...failure of basic protection



simply bypassing an rcd shouldn't render an installation 'lethal' at all

Irish Steve

My first electric shock was sitting on my bed at the age of (about) 7, and unwinding the Bakelite body of an egg shaped light switch hanging from the ceiling on a 2 core cable, as a result of opening it, and not being in contact with an earth, when I touched both sides of the switch, my body became the switch that allowed current to flow to the light. It got my attention!!!!! In the scale of things, because I wasn't touching an earth, and because there was another resistance in line, it was only a very mild tickle, but nearly 60 years later, I still remember it. I learnt a lesson that night that has stood me in good stead ever since, even if I didn't fully understand the exact phraseology at the time, which was "Electricity needs to be treated with respect"

Over the years, on several occasions, I too have made other unplanned contacts with various voltages, and yes, they've got my attention, but yes, I am still here as well, so I will agree that not every electric shock is lethal or fatal. What is usually fatal is when someone that is not expecting contact with electricity makes that contact in an environment that has other risk factors present, like a good earth, or water, or both, and an industrial environment tends to have these factors to a higher degree than a home environment.

We are splitting hairs here over the exact implications of a spark bypassing a safety device, and the eventual outcome of his actions in a court of law.

The bottom line for me is that he did something that his training should have told him was unacceptable. Hopefully, there is no argument about that.

As to the exact implications of what was connected downstream of the device he disabled, we don't know.

What we do know is that HSE decided to take the case to court. That might have been because they wanted to put down a clear marker that a spark has responsibilities that cannot be lightly ignored, and from reading older threads here on boards, and other places, this spark was not the only one that sees no issue with bypassing safety devices. So, MAYBE, HSE decided that it was time to restore some standards. I don't have an issue with that either.

We don't know what was downstream from the disabled device. If the washer was the only device downstream, then the nuisance tripping was minor, but it is altogether possible that there were other circuits or devices downstream from the disabled RCD, and bypassing the RCD increased the risk of injury or worse to people working on or with equipment downstream of the disabled RCD.

The best way I can respond to the comments that are being made is to say that it was not my decision to take the case to court, the HSE inspector, who I would hope is highly qualified, made a decision based on the information that he had at his disposal that there was a case to be answered, and that the actions of the spark "placed people at risk"

I agree that we do not have ALL the facts on this case, and it HAS been distorted by tbe media in the way that it has been reported. What has not been distorted is that the spark did something very inappropriate.

After that, the degree of risk, and the level of protection provided by the RCD, is debatable, and there will be as many opinions as there are participants.

As I said earlier

The lastest ET101's seem to mandate RCD's or RCBO's on just about everything these days, there must be a good reason for that.

No two locations are the same, some are inherently safe, others are potentially lethal, if some other unexpected scenario happens.

That was and is the issue that was being highlighted. In the absence of another fault or issue, electricity is (99.9999% of the time) safe. It can however go from safe to lethal in a microsecond, so has to be treated with that thought in mind.

If it wasn't potentially lethal, there would be no need for RECI & ECSSA, and anyone would be allowed to work on electrical circuits

ET101 is the size it is because there are so many ways and places to use (and abuse) electricity. It gets updated on a regular basis because new devices become available, and because the knowledge base and experience base is growing all the time. The first house we rented has a 25 Amp main fuse, and 3 rewireable fuses, and that was it. Now, I have Fuses, MCB's RCD's RCBO's in rows on several panels, and on balance, I know that I am better protected now than I was in that rented house 40 some years ago.

The courts decided, on the basis of evidence presented, the spark was guilty of the charge, and took action
that the judge deemed appropriate.

The reporting was poor, the linking to the death of the operative was unfortunate, but it was linked because it was that event that brought the inspector to the site. We don't know why the inspector looked at the electrics panel, maybe it was part of his "to do list" after the death, maybe someone told him that the spark had been in recently, maybe something else, we don't know.

I'd prefer not to derail the thread by continuing to split hairs any further.

2011

Irish Steve wrote: »

The bottom line for me is that he did something that his training should have told him was unacceptable. Hopefully, there is no argument about that.

It is very clear there is no argument on this point.

I have no interest in splitting hairs either.
However some of your statements as detailed in my previous post are misleading / sensationalist, that I why I felt it necessary to clarify.