Pass or Fail Real Life

Status
Not open for further replies.
peter d said:
Pass. :cool: ......
Click to expand...

So, Peter d , if your job was to inspect electrical installations to conform to the NEC

would you be able to do it ? Or, would you sometimes do it one way and sometimes do it

another way ? Simple question, hard answer. It's an Inspectors job to inspect for code

compliance and submit violations to be corrected, It's an EC job to install the work to the

NEC, It's nobody's job to pick and choose what they think is right or wrong for whatever

reason and install the work the way they choose. That is not the 'real world'.
 
benaround said:
So, Peter d , if your job was to inspect electrical installations to conform to the NEC

would you be able to do it ? Or, would you sometimes do it one way and sometimes do it

another way ? Simple question, hard answer. It's an Inspectors job to inspect for code

compliance and submit violations to be corrected, It's an EC job to install the work to the

NEC, It's nobody's job to pick and choose what they think is right or wrong for whatever

reason and install the work the way they choose. That is not the 'real world'.
Click to expand...


So then you inspect ONLY to the letter of the code? Always?

Doubt it. Any inspector that says they have never knowingly let a code violation pass is lying.

The question was "pass or fail real life" ? If I were inspecting that I would pass it if it was the only violation I found or there were only a few minor issues, which I guarantee I could find on any job.
 
Last edited:
LarryFine said:
2-hole conduit straps? Why not? I usually use 1-hole straps, though. Less work.
Click to expand...

Not saying I haved a problem with it but they are "conduit" straps. There are guys here that curl up into the fetal position and act like they're in full seizure if you "violate a listing" on a product. I dare you to drill a hole in an outlet box in front of one of them. :roll: :D
 
mpd said:
I agree the cables not being secured is not a life safety issue but it is a code violation, but i do not see why that would fail on a rough inspection, i would pass the rough and leave a field correction notice at the site and check it at the final, save me a trip and keep the job moving forward
Click to expand...

ditto........
 
paul said:
Depends on my mood and how the rest of the job looks.
Click to expand...

I was always taught to do my work neatly. When the inspector walks on to the job and everything is nice and neat and easy to look at, the inspector is more likely to just sign the card and be on his way.

But in the last couple years I actually hate it when they don't check all the work I spent time doing the right way. I was just talking to my friend about his clay shop. The building department was all up in arms over the kiln room and whether or not the fire rating still applied, and all this other stuff. When they came to do the final inspection they didn't even look at that room before signing the card.
 
Other non-compliance issues.

Other non-compliance issues.

ivsenroute said:
If you were an inspector would you fail this?

IMG_0330.JPG
Click to expand...

Yes. On the basis of nm wiring protection, the cable on the right needs a raceway or protective panel cover up to 7' AFF, or the enclosure main disconnect is most likely above the 79" maximum height AFF from the looks of the Seu cabling coming down through the panel (unless this is a MLO setup) that should be a 4-wire hookup. Either one or the other exists for non-compliance. JMO rbj
 
gndrod said:
Yes. On the basis of nm wiring protection, the cable on the right needs a raceway or protective panel cover up to 7' AFF, or the enclosure main disconnect is most likely above the 79" maximum height AFF from the looks of the Seu cabling coming down through the panel (unless this is a MLO setup) that should be a 4-wire hookup. Either one or the other exists for non-compliance. JMO rbj
Click to expand...

The first thing you mention is your opinion not NEC.

The second thing you mention is impossible to tell from the picture.

The last thing you mention again can not be determined from the picture.
 
electricmanscott said:
The first thing you mention is your opinion not NEC.

The second thing you mention is impossible to tell from the picture.

The last thing you mention again can not be determined from the picture.
Click to expand...

1. I will retract opinion.
2. On the basis of extrapolation of from picture scale and missing rough framing intent to cover up exposed cabling.
3. I agree without height of the panel AFF and description of brand/type of panel shown is not possible but there is a minimum NEC height requirement that must have been met to install this panel as located. [110.26(E)] Working space headroom. 6"6" min. [240.24] OCPD or [404.8] Switch 79"maximum. AFF. [300.4]Physical Damage Protection 7'/2.1m height
 
gndrod said:
1. I will retract opinion.
2. On the basis of extrapolation of from picture scale and missing rough framing intent to cover up exposed cabling.
3. I agree without height of the panel AFF and description of brand/type of panel shown is not possible but there is a minimum NEC height requirement that must have been met to install this panel as located. [110.26(E)] Working space headroom. 6"6" min. [240.24] OCPD or [404.8] Switch 79"maximum. AFF. [300.4]Physical Damage Protection 7'/2.1m height
Click to expand...

What your'e saying here based on that one photo is no different than you telling us that the house where the picture was taken is next to a roller coaster.

You must have a different 300.4 in your NEC. :confused:
 
iwire said:
I have done installations that looked the same and luckily for me the inspectors let common sense prevail. :cool:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want an inspector to inspect by using his common sense and look past the NEC whenever he finds a blatant code violation just because he is either to lazy to write a code violation or just wants to be a good ol boy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top