2391-301 Inspection, Testing and Certification of

Electrical Installations
Chief Examiners’ Report – October 2010

National pass rate

The national pass rate for the 2391-301 October 2010 examination is as follows:

Pass (%) Fail (%)

31.56 68.44

October 2010 question paper

The October 2010 question paper was found to be in accordance with the scheme requirements.

The national pass rate for this paper was spectacularly poor in comparison with those of the
recent past examination series. The series quality review indicated that the quality of the
candidate responses received for this paper was below that expected.

The C&G 2392-10 Fundamental Inspection and Testing has been introduced to enable
candidates to obtain the fundamental skills for inspection and testing. This qualification has
proved to be a good basis for candidates learning the basic inspection and testing procedures.
Centres may wish to review their candidate selection procedure to ensure that those entered for
the 2391-301 examination have the necessary underpinning knowledge required to afford them
every opportunity to be successful.

It would appear that candidates are still unaware that a working knowledge of Guidance Note 3
and BS 7671:2008 is required to achieve success in this qualification. Many candidates
demonstrated significant gaps in both technical and underpinning knowledge of the subject
matter. In particular the interpretation of information and test results and the validation process
for test results are areas of concern.

From the information provided by candidates, it is apparent that whilst they may be aware of the
need for inspection and testing, they have little understanding of the reasons why it is done or
the interpretation of the results obtained.

Many candidates did not display the required knowledge when answering the questions and this
would suggest they do not have the necessary knowledge, understanding and experience when
entering this qualification.

Feedback on candidate performance

The following comments are intended to help students prepare for the examination by having a
better understanding of what is expected of them. The feedback within this report would also be
valuable to tutors in understanding the candidate difficulties in answering questions and the
areas where more guidance is required.

Use of correct terminology

Candidates continue to use incorrect terminology. Incorrect titles of documents still appear on
scripts and a large number of candidates were unable to identify the types of inspection and the
correct documentation which is subsequently issued.
Descriptions of instruments used for particular tests continue to be vague. In order to be fair to all
candidates only the title of instruments stated in Chapter 4 of Guidance Note 3 are acceptable.
The instrument used for the measurement of prospective fault current is not identified by name in
GN3 but a title of PFC tester would be acceptable. Candidates were asked to identify the two
types of test instrument identified in GN3 which may be used to confirm phase sequencing. Very
few candidates were able to correctly identify these instrument types.

Some candidates are still using 16th Edition terminology such as ‘phase’ and ‘main equipotential
bonding conductor’.

Documentation

Most candidates displayed a lack of knowledge regarding the model forms shown in Appendix 6
of BS 7671 and chapter 5 0fGN 3 ,particularly where the types of work for which an electrical
installation certificate can be issued to be used in particular situations. Many identified the three
signatories rather than the types of work, new installation, addition to an existing installation and
alteration to an existing installation.

Inspection

Very few candidates understood the term containment system, so the question relating to the
inspection of a containment system, steel conduit and trunking in this paper, was poorly
answered by many of the candidates. Many identified inspection items relating to the wiring and
accessories and often these were related to the tests rather than the inspection.

It appears from the candidate responses that very few have an understanding of, and cannot
relate to, the inspection process. It was apparent that the requirements for inspection were not
understood and the candidates were unable to relate to the process of inspecting a containment
system.

Those candidates who did provide some inspection of the containment system lost marks as a
result of failing to provide the ‘observation’ that they would record on the PIR. Most, simply
stated that a code of 1 to 4 should be recorded, thus losing marks as this is the recommendation
and not the observation. The observation is significant as it needs to identify for the client in
layman’s terms what the problem is, not the remedial action. This suggests either failure to read
the question or to understand the requirements for the inspection and report writing.

Testing

Candidates were asked to describe in detail the process for carrying out the earth fault loop
impedance of a lighting circuit in a commercial building. Many candidates failed to identify the
use of GS38 compliant test leads which lost them valuable marks. Many also failed to consider
the need to secure the area around the final light on the circuit in order to carry out the test
safely.

In addition there are certain key components to describing the test process. To be fair to all
candidates where a candidate fails to carry out the test in a safe manner, fails to carry out the
test correctly to obtain suitable results or omits crucial steps in the test process they are heavily
penalised.

There were particular questions which caused candidates problems.

There were very few candidates who understood the requirements for insulation resistance
testing a circuit containing surge protection devices which cannot be removed, most linked line
and neutral and tested to earth at 500 V.

There were equally few who understood the requirements for testing for separation between a
SELV circuit and an LV circuit within the same containment system.
Testing of ring final circuit continuity was poorly answered with candidates often only carrying out
step one and then stopping or carrying out incorrect stages two and three, with linking one pair of
ends and testing across the other pair a common option. Many candidates also failed to null the
test leads before carrying out the tests and so their marks suffered considerably. Calculating the
expected values at each step from the given data also caused some candidates difficulty.

Confirmation of voltage drop compliance was another area in which candidates showed a
general lack of understanding. The requirements for confirming compliance for voltage drop at
the time of a periodic inspection is generally undertaken by either calculation or measurement.

Most candidates were unable to determine the voltage drop from the given nominal voltage and
conductor resistance of the line to neutral loop for the radial circuit. This is a basic ohms law
calculation with the inclusion of a 1.2 multiplier to compensate for conductor temperature
differences at the time of test and the normal operating temperature of the conductors. This was
then to be added to the given voltage drop to the distribution board to determine the total voltage
drop.

This value was to be compared with the maximum value for the 230 V power circuit supplied
from the public supply. Many candidates were unable to determine this value from the simple %
calculation as identified in BS 7671.

The process above is the measurement method and when asked to identify an alternative, very
few candidates identified the use of calculation (using charts & tables etc.) to determine voltage
drop. Most candidates suggested that the voltage be measured at the origin and the end of the
circuit and subtracting one from the other. This is not an acceptable method of determining
voltage drop compliance as the supply voltage may change between the two measurements
being taken.

BS7671:2008

The lack of knowledge and understanding of the requirements of Guidance Note 3 and BS 7671
continues to be apparent in answers given by candidates.

Section A

In Section A there were many fundamental errors identified in candidate responses. Typically:

• Few candidates were able to correctly identify the types of work for which an Electrical
Installation Certificate is issued as identified in on the certificate.
• Candidates were not able to distinguish between exposed and extraneous conductive parts.
• Candidates were unable to identify the effect on resistance of cables in parallel. This applied
to both conductors in question and insulation in another.
• Many candidates incorrectly answered that when the csa of a conductor is halved then so is
its resistance.
• Few candidates were able to identify the requirements for carrying out insulation resistance
testing where surge protective devices were installed.
• Many candidates were unable to correctly identify the number of additional electrodes and
test measurements to be undertaken to determine the RA for an earth electrode. Many
suggested that the highest or lowest of the three test values should be recorded as RA .
• Many candidates were unable to identify why a protective device would not operate on an
earth fault if the protective device is placed in the neutral conductor.
• Candidates were unable to correctly identify the tests to confirm electrical separation of an
SELV circuit from an LV circuit from given information
• There was some confusion regarding earthing and bonding in particular for the armouring of
a swa which most thought should be bonded rather than earthed.
• Many candidates incorrectly answered that when the csa of the conductor is halved then so is
the resistance and candidates were unable to identify the effects on insulation resistance for
given circumstances relating to length and csa.
• Many candidates calculated Zs values and then directly compared these with the maximum
tabulated value and did not apply the 0.8 factor.
• Candidates were unable to identify that a 300 mA BS EN 61008 with 30 mA devices for
additional protection installed downstream would need to be an S type and not a time delay
as this term relates to BS type RCDs only.
• Candidates were unable to identify the maximum test current for an RCD rated at 300 mA
was 300 mA (1 x IΔn) and that the disconnection time should be 300 ms.
• Candidates were generally unable to identify the instruments required to confirm phase
sequencing, as they are identified in GN3 and many believed that the test should be carried
out at every point on the installation.

Section B

In Section B there were some areas where candidates were unable to demonstrate their
understanding of the subject. These were typically

Many candidates were unable to:

• Include the need to consult the insurance company when determining the extent and
limitations of the PIR (identified as the purpose in the scenario).
• Most candidates stated that the tests which needed to be carried out whilst the supply could
be isolated for the whole installation were the standard first three tests in the sequence. It
was apparent that no thought was given to the need to complete tests such as Ze and
continuity of main protective bonding conductors which require complete isolation of the
installation in order to be performed safely and correctly. It would appear few candidates are
aware of the practical application of testing an existing installation for a PIR.
• Despite being a common question, some candidates were unable to describe the earth fault
loop impedance path for a given system, in this case TN-C-S. Candidates failed to describe
(draw) the complete earth path and the labelling of the components was particularly poor with
many candidates loosing considerable marks in this regard. Some candidates described the
earth fault path as returning through the PEN conductor and then down the supply electrode
to the mass of earth, not through the supply transformer winding.
• Correctly identify the number of forms of certification to be issued for the complete
installation.

Exam technique – time management

Time management for candidates is important to ensure they have an opportunity to achieve the
best possible result. Considering the number of marks available for each question and using this
to determine the extent and depth of the answer required would be useful.

As a guide, candidates should spend approximately one minute on an answer for each possible
mark to be awarded. A question worth three marks for example should take approximately three
minutes to complete. However many questions in Section A will take considerably less than this.

Remember that giving information that is not required costs the candidate time but does not
accumulate any marks.

Exam technique – read the question

Careful reading of the question is important. Many answers did not include the information
requested and candidates often provided answers which did not correspond to the question
posed.

Remember all questions in Section B of the paper relate to the scenario. It may be helpful for
candidates to highlight key pieces of information within the scenario as they read through the
information.