GER Licensed Electrical Inspector common mistakes
GER Licensed Electrical Inspector · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Applying the general 80% continuous-load rule to every branch circuit without first classifying the load as continuous or noncontinuous, so ampacity and overcurrent sizing come out wrong on both mixed and purely intermittent circuits.
Candidates memorize 'multiply by 1.25' as a blanket step, then cannot decide which loads actually trigger it or whether the 125% factor applies to the conductor, the overcurrent device, or both.
What to do instead
Before any calculation, write a one-line load inventory labeling each load continuous (3 hours or more of maximum current) or noncontinuous, then apply the 125% factor only to the continuous portion and size the overcurrent device to the calculated load per the standard branch-circuit sizing rules. Practice with three mixed-load examples until the labeling step is automatic.
Treating equipment grounding conductor sizing as a function of the overcurrent device rating alone, ignoring that the conductor must also be sized to the circuit conductors and that the raceway itself may serve as the grounding path only under specific conditions.
The table-based approach is easy to memorize superficially, and candidates skip the cross-check that ties conductor size, overcurrent rating, and raceway type together, especially on feeders where the ungrounded conductors were upsized for voltage drop.
What to do instead
Build a three-column worksheet for every grounding question: ungrounded conductor size, overcurrent device rating, and raceway type. Size the equipment grounding conductor from the governing table, then verify the upsized-conductor rule when voltage drop forced larger phase conductors, and state explicitly whether the raceway is a permitted grounding path.
Computing service and feeder loads by simply summing connected loads instead of applying the demand factors, and omitting the largest-motor addition and the neutral load calculation entirely.
Candidates under time pressure take the shortest arithmetic path, and the optional versus standard calculation methods blur together, so demand factors and the 25% largest-motor adder get dropped.
What to do instead
Use a fixed calculation template: general lighting with demand factors, small appliance and laundry circuits, range and dryer demand tables, largest motor at 125%, then the neutral calculation based on the maximum unbalanced load. Run the same template on a dwelling and a commercial example so the differences in demand-factor availability become concrete.
Selecting a wiring method or conductor type without checking its permitted uses and physical protection requirements for the specific location, such as using a cable type in a location where it is restricted or omitting required protection where subject to physical damage.
Candidates learn ampacity tables well but skim the article that lists permitted and prohibited uses for each wiring method, and inspection questions often hinge on that list rather than on ampacity.
What to do instead
For each wiring method you study, create a two-column card: permitted uses and prohibited uses, with the location conditions (exposed, concealed, wet, corrosive, subject to damage) as headers. When answering, name the location condition first, then match the method against the card before touching ampacity.
Documenting an inspection finding as a conclusion ('grounding inadequate') without recording the specific code section, the measured value, the test method, and the exact location, so the report cannot support enforcement or re-inspection.
Inspectors write reports from memory at the end of a long day and compress findings into shorthand, which feels efficient but loses the evidentiary detail needed if the finding is challenged.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed finding format: location, observed condition, measurement with instrument and method, code citation, and required corrective action. Write one finding in that format for every deficiency you identify during practice inspections, and never close a report with an uncited conclusion.
Reviewing plan sets only for the electrical sheets and missing cross-discipline conflicts, such as a panel location that conflicts with plumbing or structural elements, or a feeder route with no approved path through the building.
Candidates treat plan review as a code-compliance checklist on the electrical drawings alone, and the exam tests whether the reviewer catches coordination failures that only appear when sheets are compared.
What to do instead
Perform a structured overlay review: trace each feeder and branch-circuit route across architectural, structural, and mechanical sheets, and mark every location where electrical equipment shares space with other trades. Record each conflict as a review comment with the sheets compared and the resolution required.
Applying general-location wiring rules inside classified locations instead of determining the class, division or zone, and group first, then selecting equipment and wiring methods approved for that specific classification.
Hazardous location questions look like ordinary wiring questions, and candidates answer from general knowledge without establishing the classification that drives every downstream requirement.
What to do instead
For any special-occupancy question, write the classification statement first: class, division or zone, group, and temperature or ignition-related parameters. Only then choose equipment and wiring methods, and verify each selection against the permitted-uses provisions for that classification. Practice with one dust and one gas example.
Calculating voltage drop or available fault current with a single formula and no check on the assumptions, such as using nominal voltage instead of actual, ignoring conductor operating temperature, or omitting the utility transformer impedance.
Candidates memorize one formula and plug in numbers without tracking which assumptions the formula requires, and the exam deliberately supplies values that make an unexamined assumption produce a plausible but wrong answer.
What to do instead
Write the assumptions next to every calculation: source voltage and impedance, conductor material and size, length, operating temperature, and load current. Where fault current is at issue, state the transformer impedance basis and the point in the system being evaluated. Reject any answer that requires an assumption you cannot state.
Declaring a condition compliant or noncompliant without distinguishing between code requirements, manufacturer instructions, and recognized standards, then citing the wrong authority for the conclusion.
Candidates collapse all requirements into 'the code' because that is how they studied, and enforcement questions test whether the inspector can identify which document actually governs.
What to do instead
For each requirement you apply, tag it as code, listing instruction, or standard, and cite the specific document and section. When a manufacturer instruction is more restrictive than the code, note that the instruction governs the installation. Build a short list of situations where the three sources diverge.
Accepting a contractor's field change or verbal assurance during an inspection without documenting the deviation, the approval basis, and any required revised plans or engineering review.
Inspectors want to be cooperative and the change seems minor, so the approval is given verbally and never recorded, leaving no defensible record and creating liability exposure.
What to do instead
Treat every field deviation as a documented event: record what changed, who requested it, the code or engineering basis for acceptance, and whether revised plans or a professional seal are required. If the basis is missing, withhold approval in writing rather than accepting on assurance. Rehearse declining a verbal-only change politely but firmly.