Home » Electrocutions/Shocks » Iraq Electrical Wiring Method Quiz #2

Iraq Electrical Wiring Method Quiz #2

OK…tell me what’s wrong with this installation and you can’t just say “Oh My Freakin’ God!”. I need to say I have no information on this installation. It’s in Iraq or Afghanistan and I don’t know who is responsible for this beauty. It could be KBR or the Military or even another contractor, regardless…it’s a doozy!

If you have any info on this photo let me know. If you have pics send them to me at mssparky@mssparky.com

Ms Sparky

my image


  1. Comment by Wishwords:

    My husband says he’s impressed that it has a cover over it.

    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    Leave it to you two to find something positive in that mess. What an optimist!

  2. Comment by Bob:

    This installation may as well have been done by a greedy company’s lobbyists. More power to Ms Sparky for being a lobbyist for our Brothers and Sisters serving our great country.

    Keep up the great work fighting the greed that has taken control of our country. We need to start protecting people and stop protecting greedy corporations.

    I would like to see the paper work / invoice from this job:
    – Labor / 3 hours
    – Materials $200.00
    – Charges billed to US. $50,000.00
    – Profit to KBR $49,500.00

    But what do you hear on Fox News “greedy unions”. Corporate greed is literally killing our soldiers.
    This is proof that the greed

    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    Yep..your tax dollars probably paid for this. There are a lot of IBEW members and other union members as well. My fight is for all US contractors working overseas. Even the ones that are smart enough to know, they are not provided a safe work environment and have no rights or benefits.

    • Comment by Safety Sam:

      Are you insane, Bob? You see a picture of a ridiculously unsafe temporary electrical installation and you try to turn it into a conversation about corporate greed and lobbying. Now, as it happens I somewhat agree with you. But, for Chrissakes, choose the correct forum for your raving rants.

  3. Comment by IBEW Brother:

    The biggest problem is tha it is not Red Tagged.

    Do the inspectors work for KBR too.
    Conflict of interest much?

    Where is the management expertise. Any good manager would know that if the authority in juristiction owns the electrical installation company then quality standards will suffer.

    Lets have some electrical inspectors involved in this process. It is obvious that KBR’s managers are not capable of the professional execution of an electrical installation.

    In a sense it is a KBR execution, but aren’t they executing the wrong people.

    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    Electrical Inspector??? What electrical inspectors. KBR does have a QA/QC department but I am not aware if they had any “electrical inspectors”. And if they did, they were most likely inspecting porta john’s because it was mandatory they get inspected daily. Hmmmm

    Where is the management expertise??? You’re just cracking me up. My electrical GF wasn’t even an electrician.I’m not sure what the managers were experts in.

    There were and are inspections done. Read this post. http://mssparky.com/2008/07/the-fox-kbr-is-watching-the-hen-house/

    KBR was tasked and probably paid millions to go back and inspect their own work!!!! Hmmm Anyone else see a problem with that??

    Clearly independant oversight is needed. And don;t screw it up by subbing them to KBR!!!! That’s not independent.

    “In a sense it is a KBR execution, but aren’t they executing the wrong people.”
    I am going to have to use this somewhere!!

  4. Comment by Bigdeez:

    Inspections, yea right! And when we did get inspections from QA/QC, it was for minor things like cable connectors – which we never had. We would have to just double-up the jacket insulation and make it safe. Or cable tie-wraps. . . This panel was probably not done by KBR electricians per se`, but either Iraqi or Turkish subs of KBR. But in the end, it is still our responsibility.

    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    To the best of my knowledge our QA/QC in the Green Zone didn’t have an electrical inspector at all. I accepted a position in QA/QC, but then I changed my mind and went home. That would have been three years..TOO MUCH!!!

    They are not pro-active when it comes to safety. They wait until someone gets hurt or killed and then fixes it. That’s just too little too late.

  5. Comment by unionguy:

    I don’t know where this was pic was taking but i am guessing it was prolly done by the military, i seen much worse when i was there and there was nothing we could do about it but report to the senior commanders that it was a danger. If we tried to fix it, it would be in violation of our Task Order… We would be fixing something that wasn’t covered and that would be like stealing money from the US Taxpayors to do work that we wasn’t authorized to do in the first place. If anyone was over there from 2004-2006 you know what i mean when we see stuff like this, but i can understand the military’s thinking, my units at the camps that i was responsible for only stayed 7 months before they rotated and they only cared about that time and the electricians they had were in my opinion like maybe 1 or 2 year apprentices and when their superiors told them they wanted power now they did it not worrying about the consequences or safety. But we was only told to advise not fix the problem because again that wasn’t in our scope of work.

    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    Your right…stuff in Iraq is on a “BAD SCALE” from 1-10. 1 being “Not too bad” and 10 being “That’s even bad for Iraq”. I give this about a 6. I understand violation of the “Task Order”, we don’t know if this was or wasn’t. But you can STRONGLY advise the client to issue a Work Order. After hearing the facts and risks I have never had a client refuse to issue a work order or work request to repair something dangerous.

    A quote from you “fixing something that wasn’t covered and that would be like stealing money from the US Taxpayors”. After having worked for KBR in Iraq I can’t believe you actually said that out loud!! LOL I have fixed numerous safety issues without paperwork. It’s always Safety First!!!

  6. Comment by Charles:

    I work in South Africa and have seen similar on a few occasions! I’ve been in the OSH since 1968 and must admit that we see fewer and fewer like this – progress?

    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    Absolutely!!! The fact that we are talking about it all over the world is progress. No one wants a photo of their job ending up on the internet in a “What Not To Do!” article.

    But it is just my humble opinion, that KBR in Iraq and Afghanistan has set workplace safety and worker rights back 50 years!!! There’s a post brewing about that!!!

  7. Comment by ms sparky:

    I thought someone from the “Sandbox” would have mentioned this. I’ll bet you $100 there is a splice or connection of some sort under the wooden box on the left. Not to mention one or more of those BIG black scorpions and/or a venomous snake…maybe a cobra!

    I personally did not run across a cobra, but one sat up on my husband! That would have been it for me. I would have rode a bicycle to the flipn’ airport if need be! (no wicked witch of the west jokes!!)

  8. Comment by ms sparky:

    A reader has forwarded this comment to me from another forum where this post was linked. As requested, the identity of the commenter will be protected. But I felt the need to respond to their comments anyway.

    The original comment is in regular text and my responses are in italic:

    Did anyone bring this to the attention say to any of the alleged?
    Ms Sparky’s Response: I think you are trying to say…did anyone tell anyone? It is my personal experience in Iraq that possibly they did and most probably some manager said “It’s not our problem.”

    I agree and I’m confused. What I see in the picture doesn’t look good.


    Joe Tedesco started this thread with “Iraq” in the subject line and included a link to a blog called Ms. Sparky. The blogger then credited Tedesco for the picture and linked back to Tedesco’s web site.
    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    It is my opinion that this photo is from Iraq or Afghanistan, most probably Iraq, because I recognize the components. Joe sent me the photo, I used it and gave him photo credit. Joe and I link to each others sites, because we believe in the same things. SAFETY FIRST!!!

    The blogger admits having no information on the photo but doesn’t hesitate to proclaim it’s in Iraq or Afghanistan. Then the blogger speculates on some culprits. Commenters then start trashing KBR. The blogger then tagged it KBR, Iraq, etc.
    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    Again, it is my opinion that this photo is from Iraq or Afghanistan, most probably Iraq, because I recognize the components. As far as speculation of “culprits” goes…there are only so many possibilities. I was trying to give KBR the benefit of the doubt. As far as tags go, I don’t even have a tag cloud up. I don’t edit my comments unless someone is being abusive to someone other than me. The comments are those of my readers. Mostly former KBR electricians.

    Who took the photograph and when? Where? Any photoshopping involved? Is this one of those photos just floating around the Internet?
    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    I wish someone would come forward and say I took it. And Pleeeeeeze, who would photoshop this and why?

    Maybe it’s a training mockup in Arizona?
    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    Alrighty then…..and the whole Moon Landing was a scam!

    Maybe a contractor happened upon this contraption created by someone else in Turkey, didn’t have time to deal with it and posted the sign to warn people off?
    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    Pretty nice sign. Looks permanent to me!

    If there is any factual information about this photo, can someone please provide it?
    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    Here Here!! And I have many many others!!

    Sooooo, how long have you worked for KBR?

  9. Comment by joetedesco:

    Please answer the question: What’s Wrong Here?

    Please develop a list using the NEC showing what is wrong here that would be in violation of NEC rules.

    OK, then give me a rundown using Article 590 in the NEC, please only qualified answers by qualified persons. Be sure to read the definition of that term in NEC Article 100.

  10. Comment by joetedesco:

    2008 NEC, ARTICLE 590 Temporary Installations
    Summary of Changes
    • 590.4(A): Revised to reference applicable parts of Article 230 that apply to temporary installations.
    • 590.4(D): Clarified that a metal raceway or cable that is not continuous or does not qualify as an equipment grounding conductor in accordance with 250.118 must contain a separate wire-type equipment grounding conductor.
    • 590.4(E): Revised to specify that only identified handle ties are permitted.
    • 590.6: Revised to specify that ground-fault protection for personnel (GFCI) requirements apply to temporary installations supplied by electric utility or on-site generated power.
    590.1 Scope.
    The provisions of this article apply to temporary electric power and lighting installations.
    590.2 All Wiring Installations.
    (A) Other Articles. Except as specifically modified in this article, all other requirements of this Code for permanent wiring shall apply to temporary wiring installations.
    Temporary installations of electrical equipment must be installed in accordance with all applicable permanent installation requirements except as modified by the rules in this article. For example, the requirements of 300.15 specify that a box or other enclosure must be used where splices are made. This rule is amended by 590.4(G), which, for construction sites, permits splices to be made in multiconductor cords and cables without the use of a box.
    (B) Approval. Temporary wiring methods shall be acceptable only if approved based on the conditions of use and any special requirements of the temporary installation.
    The provisions of 590.2(B) require that all temporary wiring methods be approved based on criteria such as length of time in service, severity of physical abuse, exposure to weather, and other special requirements. Special requirements may range from tunnel construction projects and tent cities constructed after a natural disaster to flammable hazardous material reclamation projects.
    590.3 Time Constraints.
    (A) During the Period of Construction. Temporary electric power and lighting installations shall be permitted during the period of construction, remodeling, maintenance, repair, or demolition of buildings, structures, equipment, or similar activities.
    (B) 90 Days. Temporary electric power and lighting installations shall be permitted for a period not to exceed 90 days for holiday decorative lighting and similar purposes.
    Note that the 90-day time limit in 590.3(B) applies only to temporary electrical installations associated with holiday displays. Construction and emergency and test temporary wiring installations are not bound by this time limit.
    (C) Emergencies and Tests. Temporary electric power and lighting installations shall be permitted during emergencies and for tests, experiments, and developmental work.
    (D) Removal. Temporary wiring shall be removed immediately upon completion of construction or purpose for which the wiring was installed.
    Due to the modifications permitted by Article 590, temporary wiring installations may not meet all of the requirements for a permanent installation. Therefore, all temporary wiring not only must be disconnected but also must be removed from the building, structure, or other location of installation.
    590.4 General.
    (A) Services. Services shall be installed in conformance with Parts I through VIII of Article 230, as applicable.
    (B) Feeders. Overcurrent protection shall be provided in accordance with 240.4, 240.5, 240.100, and 240.101. Feeders shall originate in an approved distribution center. Conductors shall be permitted within cable assemblies or within multiconductor cords or cables of a type identified in Table 400.4 for hard usage or extra-hard usage. For the purpose of this section, Type NM and Type NMC cables shall be permitted to be used in any dwelling, building, or structure without any height limitation or limitation by building construction type and without concealment within walls, floors, or ceilings.
    Section 590.4(B) allows Type NM and Type NMC cable to be used in any building or structure regardless of building height and construction type in which the cable is used.
    Temporary feeders are permitted to be cable assemblies, multiconductor cords, or single-conductor cords. Cords used as feeders must be identified for hard or extra-hard usage according to Table 400.4. Individual conductors, as described in Table 310.13, are not permitted as open conductors but, rather, must be part of a cable assembly or used in a raceway system. Open or individual conductor feeders are permitted only during emergencies or tests.
    All temporary wiring methods must be approved by the authority having jurisdiction. [See 590.2(B).]
    Exception: Single insulated conductors shall be permitted where installed for the purpose(s) specified in 590.3(C), where accessible only to qualified persons.
    (C) Branch Circuits. All branch circuits shall originate in an approved power outlet or panelboard. Conductors shall be permitted within cable assemblies or within multiconductor cord or cable of a type identified in Table 400.4 for hard usage or extra-hard usage. Conductors shall be protected from overcurrent as provided in 240.4, 240.5, and 240.100. For the purposes of this section, Type NM and Type NMC cables shall be permitted to be used in any dwelling, building, or structure without any height limitation or limitation by building construction type and without concealment within walls, floors, or ceilings.
    Type NM and Type NMC cable are permitted as temporary wiring in any building or structure regardless of the height or construction type of the building in which the cable is used.
    The basic requirement for safety in 590.4(C) is that temporary wiring be located and installed so that it will not be physically damaged. In accordance with 590.2(A), temporary wiring must be installed in accordance with the appropriate Chapter 3 article for the wiring method employed (unless modified in Article 590).
    Note that hard-usage or extra-hard-usage extension cords are permitted to be laid on the floor.
    Exception: Branch circuits installed for the purposes specified in 590.3(B) or 590.3(C) shall be permitted to be run as single insulated conductors. Where the wiring is installed in accordance with 590.3(B), the voltage to ground shall not exceed 150 volts, the wiring shall not be subject to physical damage, and the conductors shall be supported on insulators at intervals of not more than 3.0 m (10 ft); or, for festoon lighting, the conductors shall be so arranged that excessive strain is not transmitted to the lampholders.
    (D) Receptacles. All receptacles shall be of the grounding type. Unless installed in a continuous metal raceway that qualifies as an equipment grounding conductor in accordance with 250.118 or a continuous metal-covered cable that qualifies as an equipment grounding conductor in accordance with 250.118, all branch circuits shall include a separate equipment grounding conductor, and all receptacles shall be electrically connected to the equipment grounding conductor(s). Receptacles on construction sites shall not be installed on branch circuits that supply temporary lighting. Receptacles shall not be connected to the same ungrounded conductor of multiwire circuits that supply temporary lighting.
    The intent of the branch-circuit provisions in 590.4(D) is to require separate ungrounded conductors for lighting and receptacle loads so that the activation of a fuse, circuit breaker, or GFCI, due to a fault or equipment overload, does not de-energize the lighting circuit. This section was revised for the 2008 Code. Metal cables or raceways must be continuous and qualify as an equipment grounding conductor. If the metal raceway or metal cable is not continuous or does not qualify as an equipment grounding conductor, a separate equipment grounding conductor must be installed.
    (E) Disconnecting Means. Suitable disconnecting switches or plug connectors shall be installed to permit the disconnection of all ungrounded conductors of each temporary circuit. Multiwire branch circuits shall be provided with a means to disconnect simultaneously all ungrounded conductors at the power outlet or panelboard where the branch circuit originated. Identified handle ties shall be permitted.
    (F) Lamp Protection. All lamps for general illumination shall be protected from accidental contact or breakage by a suitable luminaire or lampholder with a guard.
    Brass shell, paper-lined sockets, or other metal-cased sockets shall not be used unless the shell is grounded.
    (G) Splices. On construction sites, a box shall not be required for splices or junction connections where the circuit conductors are multiconductor cord or cable assemblies, provided that the equipment grounding continuity is maintained with or without the box. See 110.14(B) and 400.9. A box, conduit body, or terminal fitting having a separately bushed hole for each conductor shall be used wherever a change is made to a conduit or tubing system or a metal-sheathed cable system.
    (H) Protection from Accidental Damage. Flexible cords and cables shall be protected from accidental damage. Sharp corners and projections shall be avoided. Where passing through doorways or other pinch points, protection shall be provided to avoid damage.
    Unlike the requirement in 400.8, flexible cords and cables, because of the nature of their use, are permitted to pass through doorways, in accordance with 590.4(H).
    (I) Termination(s) at Devices. Flexible cords and cables entering enclosures containing devices requiring termination shall be secured to the box with fittings designed for the purpose.
    (J) Support. Cable assemblies and flexible cords and cables shall be supported in place at intervals that ensure that they will be protected from physical damage. Support shall be in the form of staples, cable ties, straps, or similar type fittings installed so as not to cause damage. Vegetation shall not be used for support of overhead spans of branch circuits or feeders.
    Section 590.4(J), Exception allows holiday lighting to be installed and supported by trees for a period of not more than 90 days, provided the wiring is arranged with proper strain relief devices, tension take-up devices, or other means to prevent damage to the conductors from the tree swaying.
    According to 590.4(J), temporary wiring methods do not have to be supported in accordance with the permanent installation requirements (from Chapter 3) for the particular wiring method. It should be noted that the temporary wiring must be removed upon completion of construction and adequate support is needed only to minimize the possibility of damage to the wiring method during its temporary period of use. It is not permitted to use vegetation as a support structure for overhead spans of branch-circuit and feeder conductors.
    Exception: For holiday lighting in accordance with 590.3(B), where the conductors or cables are arranged with proper strain relief devices, tension take-up devices, or other approved means to avoid damage from the movement of the live vegetation, trees shall be permitted to be used for support of overhead spans of branch-circuit conductors or cables.
    590.5 Listing of Decorative Lighting.
    Decorative lighting used for holiday lighting and similar purposes, in accordance with 590.3(B), shall be listed.
    590.6 Ground-Fault Protection for Personnel.
    Ground-fault protection for personnel for all temporary wiring installations shall be provided to comply with 590.6(A) and (B). This section shall apply only to temporary wiring installations used to supply temporary power to equipment used by personnel during construction, remodeling, maintenance, repair, or demolition of buildings, structures, equipment, or similar activities. This section shall apply to power derived from an electric utility company or from an on-site-generated power source.
    (A) Receptacle Outlets. All 125-volt, single-phase, 15-, 20-, and 30-ampere receptacle outlets that are not a part of the permanent wiring of the building or structure and that are in use by personnel shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel. If a receptacle(s) is installed or exists as part of the permanent wiring of the building or structure and is used for temporary electric power, ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel shall be provided. For the purposes of this section, cord sets or devices incorporating listed ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel identified for portable use shall be permitted.
    Exception: In industrial establishments only, where conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified personnel are involved, an assured equipment grounding conductor program as specified in 590.6(B)(2) shall be permitted for only those receptacle outlets used to supply equipment that would create a greater hazard if power were interrupted or having a design that is not compatible with GFCI protection.
    (B) Use of Other Outlets. Receptacles other than 125-volt, single-phase, 15-, 20-, and 30-ampere receptacles shall have protection in accordance with (B)(1) or the assured equipment grounding conductor program in accordance with (B)(2).
    (1) GFCI Protection. Ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel.
    (2) Assured Equipment Grounding Conductor Program. A written assured equipment grounding conductor program continuously enforced at the site by one or more designated persons to ensure that equipment grounding conductors for all cord sets, receptacles that are not a part of the permanent wiring of the building or structure, and equipment connected by cord and plug are installed and maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements of 250.114, 250.138, 406.3(C), and 590.4(D).
    (a) The following tests shall be performed on all cord sets, receptacles that are not part of the permanent wiring of the building or structure, and cord-and-plug-connected equipment required to be connected to an equipment grounding conductor:
    (1) All equipment grounding conductors shall be tested for continuity and shall be electrically continuous.
    (2) Each receptacle and attachment plug shall be tested for correct attachment of the equipment grounding conductor. The equipment grounding conductor shall be connected to its proper terminal.
    (3) All required tests shall be performed as follows:
    a. Before first use on site
    b. When there is evidence of damage
    c. Before equipment is returned to service following any repairs
    d. At intervals not exceeding 3 months
    (b) The tests required in item (2)(a) shall be recorded and made available to the authority having jurisdiction.
    Due to the more severe environmental conditions often encountered by personnel using temporary wiring while performing activities such as construction, remodeling, maintenance, repair, and demolition, there is generally an elevated exposure to electric shock or electrocution hazards. The requirement of 590.6(A) for GFCI protection of all temporarily installed, 125-volt, single-phase, 15-, 20-, and 30-ampere receptacles is intended to protect personnel using these receptacles from shock hazards that may be encountered during construction and maintenance activities.
    The exception to 590.6(A) is limited in scope and application. The exception applies only to those industrial occupancies in which qualified persons will be using 125-volt, single-phase, 15-, 20-, and 30-ampere receptacles. Additionally, either the nature of the equipment being supplied by these receptacles has to be of such importance that the hazard of power interruption outweighs the benefits of GFCI protection or the equipment has been demonstrated to be incompatible with the proper operation of GFCI protective devices. In those instances where the conditions specified by the exception are present, the use of the assured equipment grounding conductor program specified in 590.6(B)(2) is permitted. An electrically operated air supply for personnel working in toxic environments is an example of where the loss of power is the greater hazard. Some electrically operated testing equipment has proved to be incompatible with GFCI protection.
    Receptacle configurations, other than the 125-volt, single-phase, 15-, 20-, and 30-ampere types, must be GFCI protected or installed and maintained in accordance with the assured equipment grounding conductor program of 590.6(B)(2).
    According to OSHA 29 CFR 1926.404(b)(1)(iii):
    The employer shall establish and implement an assured equipment grounding conductor program on construction sites covering all cord sets, receptacles which are not a part of the building or structure, and equipment connected by cord and plug which are available for use or used by employees. This program shall comply with the following minimum requirements:
    (A) A written description of the program, including the specific procedures adopted by the employer, shall be available at the jobsite for inspection and copying by the Assistant Secretary and any affected employee.
    (B) The employer shall designate one or more competent persons.
    These OSHA requirements are very similar to the present NEC requirements for an assured grounding program.
    GFCI protection for construction or maintenance personnel using receptacles that are part of the permanent wiring and that are not GFCI protected may be provided by using cord sets or listed portable GFCIs identified for portable use. An example of a GFCI cord set that is identified for portable use is shown in Exhibit 590.1.

    Exhibit 590.1 A raintight GFCI with open neutral protection that is designed for use on
    the line end of a flexible cord.
    (Courtesy of Pass & Seymour/Legrand®)
    Exhibits 590.1 through 590.4 show some examples of ways to implement the ground-fault circuit interrupter requirements specified in 590.6(A) for temporary installations.

    Exhibit 590.2 A temporary power outlet unit commonly used on construction sites
    with a variety of configurations,
    including GFCI protection. (Courtesy of Hubbell RACO)

    Exhibit 590.3 A watertight plug and connector used to prevent tripping of GFCI protective
    devices in wet or damp weather. (Courtesy of Hubbell RACO)

    Exhibit 590.4 A 15-ampere duplex receptacle with integral GFCI that also protects
    downstream loads.
    (Courtesy of Pass & Seymour/Legrand®)
    590.7 Guarding.
    For wiring over 600 volts, nominal, suitable fencing, barriers, or other effective means shall be provided to limit access only to authorized and qualified personnel.

    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    Nice Job Joe! How come you are working on Saturday!

  11. Comment by joetedesco:

    This not work, it is my obsession! I work around the clock, especially when I am on the road.

    I was on the Amtrak from Washington, DC last night arriving in Boston, MA at 8 am.

    I just spent the last 3 days teaching over 40 Army Corp of Engineers (electrical inspectors), we had a great time and they are ready with more “CODE” ammunition to call out the violations that sometimes were not found or overlooked!

    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    “Obsession” like me trying to get these labor and OSHA laws changed for US citizens working on US projects overseas!! And yes…I am working on Saturday too!

  12. Comment by joetedesco:

    ……..and because of this terrible accident and many others!


  13. Comment by joetedesco:

    Debbie: Now it is Sunday morning, and I just walked my Dog ZURI, and now I will spend the rest of the day working! I must prepare my presentation for an eveninng talk nearby to home inspectors who want to be brought up to date on the new appliance and device rules related to GFCI, AFCI, LED, HACR, and many others that will fall into the inspection process.

    PS: Here is the special place over on the http://www.osha.gov site for electrical:


  14. Comment by joetedesco:

    Oops! For OSHA I meant:


    Sorry for the inconvenience, but I too can make some mistakes.

  15. Comment by David Buckley:

    Particularly impressive is the three pole breaker on the right used as a terminal block…

  16. Comment by kngdvd:

    And Who may I ask is the AHJ ?

    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    To the best of my knowledge this is a US military base in Iraq or Afghanistan. There was no program in place to have an AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) inspect. They are starting to do it now though. People are starting to frown on the fact they are sending their family to Iraq to fight and they are being electrocuted in the damn shower! Check out my Task Force Safe post.

  17. Comment by kngdvd:

    Sorry left some of my question out. In Iraq?

    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    Either Iraq or Afghanistan

  18. Comment by karmaguy38:

    By the light pole that the “panel” is attached to I would say Iraq, I saw similar poles at Al Asad.

    Looks like the work of a typical KBR “Electrician”.

    We had guys from Kenya working with us in Kandahar in ’06 that were classified as electricians that didn’t know what a wire nut was.

  19. Comment by robert pullano:

    I am a master electician in Michigan and self employed looking for a job. please let me know if there might be a good paying their.

    Ms Sparky’s Response:

  20. Comment by Anonymous:

    If you want the scoop on stanley, email me

    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    Consider it done!

  21. Comment by saint-john smythe:

    i never seen anthing quite as bad in kuwait, but i have to admit that is an absolute fucking shambles!! i would want my ass fired if i was involved in an installation such as this, where do you start? Oh My God no wonder people are dying in iraq when you see workmanship like that!!

    Ms Sparky’s Response:
    Yep. I couldn’t agree more.

  22. Comment by Ken@Home:

    We did our best in Kuwait with the shit we had available. This was Dec/January for me. And I can personally vouch for myself and all the Brits that we drove ourselves crazy trying to get those thick-skulled fucks to understand the problems were bigger than what those 14 page packets covered. I guess it’s all about interpretation and who’s they chose to use.

  23. Comment by Thomas Cox:

    Is there a standard “wiring color code” for 380/220 Volt systems in iraq? What is the standaard 220 Volt receptacle…some web sites refer to a round pin as standard while others refer to the UK type G 3-prong…we are building a barge that ultimately will be shipped for use in Iraq. It will have a 3-Phase 380/220 Volt Generator..In this case would the ground be Bonded to the hull at the
    power Panel as with our 120 Volt systems? I find your web site intresting and informative, any help you can give regarding these questions would be very helpful.
    Tommy Cox

  24. Comment by Charles Abruscato:

    This picture and the other one are those taken in a place called the “chicken coup” in an IRAQ camp, no americans were involved in this and it is on the C sites somewhere.

  25. Comment by Proleter:

    I have been researching electrical installations in US for some time. I have never seen not one GFCI(or RCD/RCBO) device. Here RCBO(GFCI) with 30mA trip current and 40amps rated current costs around 30-35$. Replacement or installing new RCBO costs around 20-25$.
    And according to our regulations, a domestic, office or temporary installation can’t be connected to the power grid unless it has suitable ground fault circuit interrupter. There are large penalties for using electrical installation without RCD(or RCBO).

  26. Comment by corkybateselectric:

    Well one of you almost got it right. I took this picture…..It was at Al Asad on the Iraqi compound. I took this picture to the DCMA right after I locked and tagged it out. Again…..ignorant people trying to talk about something that they’re clueless to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *