The Three Day Expert
It is generally acknowledged that there is a lack of expertise in defining and installing electrical equipment in hazardous areas. In the last few years the facilities for the training of technicians has improved, in Europe this has been largely due to the EEMUA initiated courses but supplemented by some other organisations. The problem of training engineers to design equipment is not too severe since most equipment is subject to third party certification, and hence there is a possibility that any significantly dangerous errors in the design will be detected. This does presuppose the certification authority is competent but that is a perennial question.
The current need is to adequately train engineers to select and specify equipment for specific applications. The problem is that no one person can know enough to ensure a satisfactorily safe installation and yet current proposals suggest that a few days training can produce a “certified” engineer who can do it all. It is obvious that this is absurd, for example the skills necessary to select and specify an intrinsically safe level gauge for installation in a Zone 20 location are a world apart from those necessary to select and specify a large electric motor for a Zone 2 location. In practice many instrument engineers who work on plants have detailed knowledge of relevant aspects of their particular installation and only a cursory knowledge of other techniques and installations. They are usually in the best position to assess and ensure the safety of their installation, and the difficult part is to sustain a responsible attitude to safety in the face of other pressures. Possibly the more difficult situation is that of the engineer working for a design contractor who may have to work on plants with quite different problems in rapid succession. In these circumstances wide experience and a network of knowledgeable acquaintances is the only hope for creating an adequately safe design.
Area classification is a part of most applications and is an art which is best practised by a team of people with complimentary skills and experience, it is not predominantly an electrical engineering problem. There are some basic concepts but every application is different and the necessary skills cannot be taught in a few days. The situation becomes even more difficult if the “instant expert” tries to apply the risk analysis approach since this requires the Wisdom of Solomon and the direct help of whichever the expert worships.
There is a need for training of engineers in the basics of ‘explosion protection’ techniques, and for frequent updating as the techniques develop. The case for testing to establish that a level of understanding has been achieved is less well established. However it must be recognised that training courses are only one starting point and the most that a training course can achieve is to make an engineer aware of the risk and the available solutions. Possibly the greatest benefit to be derived from training courses is the realisation of how much there is to learn and the recognition of personal limitations. In practice most engineers continuously build up experience by working on specific projects and interacting with colleagues. Training courses make only a small contribution.
The available training courses are usually organised by certifying authorities or training organisations. The better ones use engineers [usually semi -retired and not quite passed their sell-by date] who have worked on installations and have a realistic approach to the known problems. Some courses deteriorate to intensive training on how to read completely unintelligible labels and nauseating detail on the interpretation of apparatus design standards. This practice is frequently led by the obligatory multiple choice questions that form the end of course test.
Possibly a website containing basic training material could be set up by one of the engineering institutions and that could draw from the experience of its members. It might even be possible to update the information on the site and encourage discussion on known problems. The cost would be considerable and it would need a driving personality behind it, and so it is unlikely to happen.
The fundamental need is for engineers to behave as professionals, acquire the knowledge they need, accept responsibility for what they do, and to recognise when they need to consult with colleagues. The possibility of anyone being ‘certified’ as competent in all aspects of “safety in explosive atmospheres” is too remote to be contemplated.
