Pass or Fail Real Life

Status
Not open for further replies.
ivsenroute said:
Good example.

Police witness things that happen that are periods in time and are not tangible. If you go through a stop sign and there is not an accident, crime yes, but no consequence.

A non-compliant installation is tangible and will last until it is corrected by someone.
Click to expand...


The end result, is there is no evidence left behind for others to see. The wiring in the OP's picture leaves something for all to see after the installer leaves.


There is a post about the number of poor installations.
There is a long list of exceptional installers in our industry.The majority of times it seems we love to discuss the poor jobs.;)
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
The end result, is there is no evidence left behind for others to see. The wiring in the OP's picture leaves something for all to see after the installer leaves.


There is a post about the number of poor installations.
There is a long list of exceptional installers in our industry.The majority of times it seems we love to discuss the poor jobs.;)[/QUOTE]

Thats because it is human nature, it makes one feel better about their work.
Click to expand...
 
7' aff

7' aff

iwire said:
The NEC has no '7'AFF' requirement.
Click to expand...
Hi Bob,
7" AFF was short for "to a height of 2.1 m(7 ft) above the floor" or "installed not less than 2.1 m (7 ft)above the finished floor" many numerous times mentioned in the NEC as reference back to Chapter 3 Wiring Methods. In residential work 320.23 and 334.15 are used in inspections for non-compliant wiring in attics, crawl, basement and garages for exposed wire/cable issues. Hope this helps any one leaving exposed cabling lower than 7' height with an AHJ disagreement. rbj
 
gndrod said:
Hi Bob,
7" AFF was short for "to a height of 2.1 m(7 ft) above the floor" or "installed not less than 2.1 m (7 ft)above the finished floor" many numerous times mentioned in the NEC as reference back to Chapter 3 Wiring Methods. In residential work 320.23 and 334.15 are used in inspections for non-compliant wiring in attics, crawl, basement and garages for exposed wire/cable issues. Hope this helps any one leaving exposed cabling lower than 7' height with an AHJ disagreement. rbj
Click to expand...

May I ask what on earth you are talking about? :confused:
 
Peter d,
Your profile says "Hack Hacking and I am not sure" Hmmmm, Some live a charmed life. Here is another 'made up' reference to look at in the NEC [394.23] Just helping....rbj
 
Last edited:
gndrod said:
Peter d,
Your profile says "Hack Hacking and I am not sure"
Click to expand...

Indeed it does. :cool:

Hmmmm, Some live a charmed life.
Click to expand...

I concur.

Here is another 'made up' reference to look at in the NEC [394.23] Just helping....rbj
Click to expand...

Thankfully inspectors in my area use common sense and do not require these extraordinary protection measures for cables entering the top of a surface mounted panel in a basement. That's what this entire discussion has been about.

And has already been mentioned, the "7' rule" you keep quoting applies to attics, not basements. You may have a local rule but it is certainly not an NEC rule.
 
peter d said:
334.15 allows us to run NM cable exposed on running boards. Do you require that to be boxed in as well?
Click to expand...

Depends on the open wiring location and situation, [398.15(C)] Exposed to Physical Damage. "Conductors within 2.1 m (7 ft) from the floor shall be considered exposed to physical damage." This even applies to LV secondary circuits. rbj
 
gndrod said:
Depends on the open wiring location and situation, [398.15(C)] Exposed to Physical Damage. "Conductors within 2.1 m (7 ft) from the floor shall be considered exposed to physical damage." This even applies to LV secondary circuits. rbj
Click to expand...

You're not serious, are you? You actually used 398.15 to defend your argument? :confused:

Ok, I think you are serious. Did you actually read what 398 applies to? Industrial and agricultural establishments. It has absolutely nothing to do with NM cable. Talk about taking a code rule way out of context. :confused:
 
peter d said:
You're not serious, are you? You actually used 398.15 to defend your argument? :confused:

Ok, I think you are serious. Did you actually read what 398 applies to? Industrial and agricultural establishments. It has absolutely nothing to do with NM cable. Talk about taking a code rule way out of context. :confused:
Click to expand...

Being an old country hack, this applies to boot-legged farms as well. I am really not jerking this around. The 7' AFF is really applied on the West Coast and for many reasons. Spelling out another common area in this context is [411] application of LV lighting systems....
[411.5(D)(2)&(3)] requires the listed system to be protected up to 7 ft above the finished floor unless the system is specifically listed for a lower installation height and conforms to CH 3 methods. rbj
 
ivsenroute said:
And why do you routinely see more serious violations?

Because inspectors are becoming lax which in return allows the ECs to become even more lax which results in a weakening of the industry.
Click to expand...

No, I do not believe that for a minute.

The serous violations that I see are not due to an inspector using common sense about cable supports entering a panel, the serious violation I see exist because there never was an inspection.

What is one reason people avoid inspections? Because they are afraid they will get the 'Joe Friday, just the facts, I am a robot' type inspector that drives job costs up while enjoying their authority just a bit to much. (They are out there, just like there are bad ECs out there.)

No matter how small you think this issue is, it is still written into the code book for a reason and there is no good reason whatsoever that this could and should not be a compliant installation.
Click to expand...

Yes it is written in the code book.

In my area it is often written that 65 MPH is the speed limit yet even when a cop has collected data (tangible evidence) on his laser gun he decides not to stop people doing 66 to about 75 MPH. I guess he should be by the book and stop every person but then we are leaving real life and entering a perfect life.
 
iwire, i wll asked you again, a new home is found to have several NEC violations that are not life safety but are still NEC violations (no matter how minor) this homeowner is demanding a code compliant home and wants to know why you as an inspector passed it, how would you handle it, because that is real world, and your police comparison makes no sense
 
iwire said:
Yes it is written in the code book.
Click to expand...


It's not just written in the book as a suggestion. The language used makes it a mandatory rule because they use the term, "shall be".

It's my undrestanding that a "shall" is non-negotiable. If it were a permissive rule then it would be open to opinions as far as necessity.

By the way Joe Friday was a great cop. I never saw him eat a single dough-nut.
 
Sixteen pages of comments on whether not securing NM should be cited by the inspector?

If we have to argue about whether simple and cheap stuff in the code should be enforced, we are in trouble. And its not as if there is any question that the code requires it.

If I were an inspector and saw something like this, I would look a lot closer at everything, wondering if the guy that did this work was too lazy to pound a couple staples in, what else did he do?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top