That is just one of the reasons they may nuisance trip, another is cumulative leakage current when supplying multiple pieces of utilization equipment as would be the case with a main GFCI breaker.
But if 30 or 50ma was used instead, and calculations were done (ie no more than 250ft of NM per 10ma of trip current) nuisance tripping would not be an issue while still providing arc protection.
I did not and I don't see how we can treat them the same. The concept is the sane but the trip levels are often 100s of amps apart from each other. GFCI 4-6 mA. GFP mains often 200-800 amps.
Nope, a Euro RCD is often designed to trip at 30ma, some 50 and some older ones at 100 to 500ma.
Nothing can stop us from using a 50ma sub-main built to our standards.
Let's not mix the two, the NEC does not so for clerity let's keep GFCI (People protection) seperate from GFP (equipment protection)
Ok, you have a good point here, but GFP is a good substitute for an AFCI, and in any case could be done submain.
I disagree, knocking out a main over a blip on a branch circuit can certainly be a safety issue.
Then why doesn't the NEC require selective coordination on anything other than an emergency circuits? Why can lights and outlets be one the same circuit?
Bottom line it doesn't matter.
I am sure we will get to full coordination at some point but regardless of that there is no good reason to make electrical systems more likely to open a main.
Safety is in the scope of the code.
Again, we aren't opening a single main under British standards, and second if we are its a design issue. We do not have selective coordination yet, and there are a million ways the NEC can inadvertently cut power creating a safety hazard but until the NEC specifically address those the point is not valid. Even then Id still argue code shouldn't dictate design. Yes, safety is the scope, but its a minimum standard. Losing lights in a home is not considered a life safety hazard, if it were then homes would be required to have a generator with a 10 second transfer.