I love that picture! I notice the new safety training requirement in the definition. I'm sure most will agree that this would be a good thing in theory. Is there any part of the code that stipulates what type of training or how much? Is each jurisdiction going to have to form it's own committees or whatever to investigate this and stay on top of it? Or is that as far as it goes? I'm surprised that some sort of guidelines or reccomendations have not accompanied this definition change. It almost sounds like the AHJ would have to make a determination on a case by case basis who was qualified for what. I'm just a little confused by it at the moment as to how it can work like this.
#76553 - 02/21/0110:52 AMRe: New Definition of "Qualified Person"
That (Art 80) would be the place where I would have expected to see it. I see general guidelines for qualification of Inspectors but not Electricians. If that was going to be part of the Application and certification process for Electricians might We end up with many different classifications because of different skills and safety knowledge necessary for different types of work? (ie Hazardous locations and their different classifications)
Another thing, the "skills and knowledge related to the construction and operation of the Electrical Equipment" sort of implies (to me) that some intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Electrical Equipment may be necessary. Does that mean that We have to know Electronics to install a plc? I realize that wording these things is very difficult, I am just picking at it. That would not be the intention, .... Right?
In short, I think that some rewording or accompanying explanation or guidelines is required. You could have a real flamer here Joe!
#76555 - 02/21/0103:13 PMRe: New Definition of "Qualified Person"
Spell Check? Oh, yeah, I didn't see that. Did you use it? I was wondering how "confrunted" got passed up in your message?
I think that some people may be tired of debating such intangible entities as the "Qualified" Person. It is much easier to point out the shortcomings of a definition than it is to come up with a consise one. I'll go around with you a few times, but take it easy on me OK?
I don't know as I would have any better Ideas, but I am more interested in knowing the intent of this code change, I mean how should this be interpreted and carried out?
We have other areas in the Code with poorly worded language but We all (most anyway) know what is meant by it so it's not a problem. I can see this as creating much controversy if it is left as is without additional explanation.
To start off, let me ask you - plain English, OK? - What is your opinion, as an Instructor as to how this well-meaning Safety Training requirement should be implemented and according to what guidelines and who should be Judge and Jury on this? I'm just asking opinions here. I don't mean to put you on the spot but I'd like to know.
#76557 - 02/21/0109:30 PMRe: New Definition of "Qualified Person"