Inspector is not happy

[qcroanoke]

So, you're suggesting two nipples and a J-box?

I think you know what I meant

 

[Eddie702]

I don't like it and wouldn't do it that way but I see nothing wrong with it other than I would put a strap on the flex. I don't care about the fittings being 'non compliant" That is BS in the code as far as I am concerned. It's been done that way for years and is a non-issue IMHO

 

[AC\DC]

Do we know that the complaint did not originate with the customer on account of it being ugly?

That could be true. Was not directly meaning this customer

 

[tortuga]

OP has not answered if there is an equipment grounding conductor in the run. I would contact the inspector directly and say I was trying to improve my code understanding and politely ask what code sections it violated. And I would not be surprised if the answer was 250.118.

 

[Jraef]

is that 1" flex? How many bends in the run?
Either way to be 100% legal at minimum the flex needs a strap and verify a wire type equipment ground is pulled in.
I'd be more concerned about the floating EMT between the lights and the missing 4S cover.

LOL, I stared at that little square box in the red circle for 5 minutes trying to figure out what it was and what the problem was... I should read the entire thread before wasting time like that.

 

[Fred B]

So looks like we've got EMT to threaded box connector to a threaded coupling to a flex connector to flex an back again, and no supports on the flex.

They do make a proper listed single fitting to transition from EMT to Flex without all the convoluted and non compliant connections.

But unseen is if there is a EGC within an as mentioned another possible violation.

I'd be more concerned about the floating EMT between the lights and the missing 4S cover.

Nice catch