Lightning protection is a topic that is often overlooked until it is too late. Across the UK, thousands of systems continue to be inspected yearly under the standard to which they were originally installed. If they meet the guidelines and criteria of that particular standard, they are often ‘passed’ and marked as compliant.
This has become accepted practice and the status quo of the UK lightning protection industry. It’s important to be aware that no standard, current or otherwise, is retrospective; they only reference themselves.
We will break this down below.
CP1:1943: Code of Practice for the protection of Structures Against Lightning
This was the first British standard; it provided foundational guidance for lightning protection. It reflected the engineering knowledge of its era but differs greatly from today’s understanding. Installations carried out to this standard are still commonly found throughout the UK.
CP 326:1965: The Protection of Structures Against Lightning
Although it represented a slight improvement over CP1:1943, it still relied heavily on concepts and principles that have since evolved enormously. Installations of this type are still extremely prevalent on all manner of structures, especially churches and schools across the country.
BS 6651:1985: Code of Practice for Protection of Structures Against Lightning
This standard is the second most common type of installation seen in Britain, with many of its original installers still working within the lightning protection industry today. BS 6651 represented a significant step forward for the industry and remained the UK’S principal LP standard for many years.
BS EN IEC 2024: Protection Against Lightning
The current series transformed the way lightning protection systems are designed, installed and assessed. Comprising four detailed parts covering General Principles, Risk Management, Physical Damage to Structures and Life Hazard, and Electrical and Electronic Systems within Structures, it introduced a far more comprehensive, risk-based approach to protecting buildings, their occupants and increasingly sensitive electrical and electronic equipment.
Each revision of a lightning protection standard reflects advances in engineering knowledge. They are not changed for the sake of change; they evolve because our understanding of lightning behaviour, risk assessment and effective protection continues to improve.
Why Does Any of This Matter?
The evolution of lightning protection standards tells an important story. Every new edition has been introduced with one objective: to improve the level of protection provided. However, while standards continue to evolve, many existing lightning protection systems remain unchanged and continue to be inspected against the historical standards to which they were originally installed.
That approach is entirely understandable; retrofitting every building whenever a standard changes would often be impractical, disruptive and expensive, but shouldn’t stop us asking an important question: If today’s standards are designed to provide a higher level of protection, what exactly are we confirming when an older system receives a compliant inspection report? What does a ‘PASS’ actually mean?
Imagine a lightning protection system installed 40 years ago; it may fully comply with the requirements that existed at the time of installation, it may pass its annual inspection today and legitimately receive a satisfactory inspection report.
But does that automatically mean it provides the same level of protection as a system designed in accordance with today’s standards, and most importantly, is the structure, its occupants and equipment safe from the dangerous effects of lightning?
Not necessarily; modern lightning protection standards have evolved because our understanding has evolved. Today’s standards incorporate decades of additional knowledge surrounding lightning behaviour, risk assessment, bonding, separation distances, surge protection, structural protection and the safeguarding of increasingly sensitive electrical and electronic systems. If our understanding of risk has improved, it is reasonable to ask whether inspection reporting should communicate that difference more clearly.
Perhaps the easiest way to understand this is by considering other safety-critical industries: if a fire alarm system lacked features now regarded as essential, would we simply reassure the client because it complied with the regulations that existed decades ago? If an electrical installation pre-dated many of today’s recognised protective measures, would we automatically assume it offers the same level of protection as a modern installation?
Most safety-critical industries continually reassess risk as engineering knowledge develops and update and make safe accordingly. Lightning protection should be no different; compliance is a process, protection is an outcome. This is where the distinction becomes important—compliance tells us whether a system satisfies a defined standard, protection tells us the level of resilience that system is likely to provide.
The two concepts are closely related, but they are not identical. A lightning protection system can legitimately comply with an older standard while still providing a lower level of protection than would normally be expected from a modern design and fall short of today’s safety considerations, putting your structure, occupants and equipment at risk!
Recognising that distinction is not a criticism of inspectors, contractors or standards; however, engineers also have a professional responsibility to communicate risk honestly. If an older system would not satisfy current best practice, clients deserve to understand that difference so they can make informed decisions about upgrades rather than assuming a satisfactory inspection report tells the whole story.
A Better Way Forward
The client deserves greater transparency. Imagine inspection reports clearly distinguishing between:
- Compliance with the historical installation standard.
- Compliance with current standards.
- Recommended improvements that would achieve the level of protection expected from a modern installation.
Such an approach would allow building owners, facilities managers and duty holders to make decisions based on risk rather than assumption; it would also encourage investment where improvements genuinely reduce risk and provide a greater level of safety. Ultimately, clients aren’t paying for paperwork. They’re paying to understand the level of protection their system actually provides.
Every inspection report should answer two simple questions:
- Does my system comply with today’s standard?
- What improvements would be required to bring it up to date?
True compliance isn’t about meeting yesterday’s standards; it’s about helping clients prepare for tomorrow’s risks.
Leave a Reply