I don't know, but the "no commandos" was well established before the interlocked ones appeared. One approach I've seen used a few times is to have the commando outlets in a locked cupboard with gaps for the flex to pass under the door. I guess someone must make a special cupboard for this purpose.
Only in theory. If you use an extension cable (very likely) then the connector end of the extension is un-shuttered.
He was wrong in that PAT is not required for anything. It is merely a useful tool in demonstrating compliance with regulations. However, the point I was making is that he viewed the lathe as portable electical equipment because it was connected by a plug and socket.
Colin Bignell
Sorry Andrew, I have to disagree with your assertion. In this context, "portable" most definitely refers to the appliance.
The concept of PAT testing arose from the requirements of the newly enacted Electricity at Work Regulations in 1989.
Here, the relevant clause is "use electrical energy" because whilst on prima facie evidence, the Electricity at Work Regulations were designed to protect workers in respect of the use and maintenance of installed systems, the above interpretation is a catch-all and applies to all electrical appliances.
So all electrical equipment and all appliances have to comply with sections 5 and 6 of Part II of the Electricity at Work Regulations (which relate to the electrical and mechanical integrity and suitably for adverse environmental conditions likely to be encountered).
The PAT regime arose to deal with this requirement to ensure that portable equipment (not subject to periodic inspection/testing and planned maintenance in-situ and not covered by PUWER or some other specific legislative requirement) was electromechanically safe and therefore compliant with the requirements of the Electricity at Work Regulations.
It was quickly realised that, in respect of portable tools (which are essentially used out-of-the-box unmodified and notionally entirely in accordance with the manufacturers instructions), the requirements of PUWER for safety inspection/testing could be satisfied through the PAT regime provided the PAT regime was modified slightly to cover a general mechanical inspection (i.e. if it's clearly broken/worn it needs fixing irrespective of whether electrical safety is overtly compromised).
Not so. How could this apply to the despatch dept. at HSS hire? They test tools before despatch as a matter of course, but they have no access to the final job site or control over the use to which the hiree puts the tools.
This applies to many other commercial activities, such as showbiz. Rental companies, whether dry or wet hiring are rarely going to be PAT testing in a theatre or conference centre or in Hyde Park. The vast majority of their testing is going to take place in their warehouse as a planned/periodic activity. Even for a long term hire of a long-running west-end show, equipment has to be fully de-rigged periodically and either tested on the floor or swapped out and tested back at rental HQ.
An example is that a hot air paint stripper
Where on earth do you get this idea from? Nobody could possibly legislate for the example you have cited under a PAT regime.
The hot air paint stripper could only ever be reasonably tested with regard to the conditions under which you would expect to use it as a paint stripper. Mis-use or inappropriate use of equipment or use of otherwise electrically and mechanically sound equipment in an inappropriate situation/environment has absolutely nothing to do with PAT testing per-se.
Clearly, there is a duty of care issue under the Health and Safety Act
1974 to ensure that a hot air stripper were not inappropriately used as a hand dryer, but the PAT regime has nothing to say about it.Another example of this faulty thinking relates to work in a confined space. You can take all kinds of equipment into a confined space or explosive atmosphere (such as a grain store) which had just five minutes ago passed a PAT with flying colours and still blow yourself to kingdom come.
There is no correct name for the "procedure". For that matter, there is no "correct procedure" There is only compliance with relevant provisions of relevant legislation and/or statutory instrument.
The fact is that the lathe is subject to Section 5 of PUWER which requires that the tool is "is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair" *and* the lather is subject to the provisions of the Electricity at Work Regulations. The electrical part of periodic inspection/testing which is required as part of a preventative maintenance regime may (or may not) be rolled into a PAT regime at the convenience of the responsible Health and Safety Officer.
HTH
Could it be to take them out of the scope of PAT testing to save money on future testing?
Mines the same. The instructions carried a warning about using it on a ladder :-)
Somewhere in the British Standard on machinery safety, which I don't have to hand at the moment, it says something to the effect that disconnection should not be instantaneous if that would disable safety devices.
Colin Bignell
The mind boggles...
(not even sure my ladder is rated to take a Delta Unisaw!)
Andrew was probably referring to the IEE/IET code: "Code of practice for the In-Service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment" (now in its 3rd edition) which gives authoritative guidance on what is popularly called 'PAT testing' (although it's the word "inspection" that should have the greater emphasis).
Yes, I was going to dig it out to followup, but I don't have time at the moment. Anyway, it is accepted by HSE as satisfying the inspection/testing for 5 Acts, not just Electricity at Work Regs. Person responsible for managing the regime within a company should hold C&G 2377-001 certificate (and they will then know that they should check the person(s) doing the inspection and testing holds a C&G 2377-002 certificate). Again, these are recognised by HSE as demonstrating the required level of compitence. These are not time consuming or difficult to obtain, and you do not need to be an electrician (although 2377-002 will require some understanding of ohms law and difference between milliohms and megohms). They are usually covered off as a one day course with exam for each, and most people do both on two consecutive days as there's a good deal of overlap.
You are of course free to define your own testing regime, but then you are also required to show it conforms to all the required legislation in the event that you end up in court, or are inspected by the HSE. If you follow the IEE code of practice and show staff have been appropriately trained by gaining the relevant certificates, that's already covered off for you.
But going back to the original point, the Code of practice doesn't just cover portable appliances, and it does require that an appliance is suitable for the use to which it's being put (e.g. not using a hot air paint stripper as a hand drier), or more typically, if you're providing an £8 kettle from argos for 150 people in an office to make their drinks, it will probably need very frequent inspection, whereas if you are using a water boiler designed for such a task, it will require much less frequent inspection (and likely work out much cheaper). Hence "In-Service Inspection", as you otherwise can't tell if one person or 150 people are using it. Where you can't do in-service inspection (such as a hire shop), then you have to assume worse possible wear case (which is why many check appliances between every hire).
Andy and Andrew. Thanks for your clarifications.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.