PAT testing class I or class II

The fact that equipment fails safety tests doesn't prove there's a problem.

If people keep getting electrocuted because of faulty electrical equipment, that would prove there's a problem. To what extent it's a serious problem, and to what extent it can be eliminated by PAT testing, are further questions to be addressed.

I've even failed brand new out-of -the-box kit for no earth bond.

Apparently now non-approved according to my source, on the basis that a bulb failure would give a false negative. I always test mine at the start of a job and (after using the neon screwdriver) touch the live with a moving finger to be extra sure.

I would assume that was the case with any instrument, hence those proving devices that seem to be popular now.

I watched a young electrician at my previous place of employment unpack a Volage tester that had arrived from RS components and use it to test the Voltage on the three phases of the smashed socket he was to replace, the disconnection was carried out by a.n other.

As he grabbed his terminal driver, I stopped him and asked if he thought it might be a good idea to test a known live first. At this point he stuck the index finger in the handholding the terminal driver out and wiped it across the most exposed phase.

I am not sure if this is an accepted means of checking phase Voltages, but the technique would have been my ticket off many construction and manufacturing sites.

AB

Yes it does. The unit is in use or has been presented for testing and its condition has degraded.

Some items of equipment can "fail" from new, but these are in the minority.

Safety testing is a valuable service, people will not report frayed flex or damaged covers, they just use the equipment and leave it to others to deal with problems.

If you want to live in a dream world where everyone applies "common sense" and uses equipment until it's producing sparks or dead, then you will have to wait until we exit the EU I'm afraid.

AB

It would certainly not determine the voltage, but I suggest it must be safer to find out under controlled conditions that a wire is live rather than finding out later. I emphasise I would test with the neon screwdriver first so the 'wipe' would be belt and braces. This is at home where I decide the H&S rules!

My brother like to mess those about that tell him it needs to be done. He gets a lot of phone calls at work from people selling PAT testing. If they say that "he has to have it done, "it's a legal requirement " etc he books them in.

When they get to his garage he says "I have decided not to have the tests done, you lied to me on the phone, go away"

He does not get as many sales calls as he used to.

The 0207/0208 misconception came about because BT were running out of numbers and split the original 01 code into 071 and

When the 020 code was introduced, many people thought that the

However, this has now spread to the new 3000 series of exchange numbers, despite the fact that there never was an 031 London Code!

Look on Google earth at virtually any London dhopping street and you will find shops with the correct 020 code on their frontage next door to a shop with an 0208 or 0207 number!

I ordered a spare part for something a few years ago from a local supplier. I was asked for a contact number and said 8220

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp posted

No it doesn't.

No; rather, it has failed the safety test.

Whether that shows it has degraded is another question; and then there is a further question of whether the degradation is actually a safety hazard.

A safety test by its very nature tests for electrical safety. If something fails a safety test there is a problem. Things can fail that do not have any logical connection to mains Voltage risks at the time of testing, but an electrical item presented for test does carry a history of its treatment and has to be in reasonable overall condition to pass.

The first and most important part of the test is the thorough visual inspection. I would have expected you to know that.

AB

It was only ever expected to be for power tools and the like, that are very likely to become damaged or worn in the harsh conditions of some sitework. It has since spread to cover everything in the workplace - to the extent that the place I am currently working at (while not including them in the PAT testing) includes warnings on the video noticeboard about the dangers of worn or damaged USB leads!

SteveW

On Saturday, 21 July 2018 17:39:02 UTC+1, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wr ote:

PAT testing exists because people do not consistently look after the basic electrical safety of themselves, the public & employees. I've seen enough d angerous electrical work from before PAT testing days to know there was cle arly a hazard. But I don't know how many deaths it caused.

NT

yes - not necessarily true for things like MOTs etc

how?

not at all

not at all

visual is most of the test. But leaving that to office staff with no other electrical training is not realistic.

NT

Hmmm! as the topic was PAT testing !!

Phone chargers, insulation or physical damage affecting the LT side. It will fail.

Yes it does. I tested fitters tools, every blow was faithfully recorded, likewise when the blows did manage to remove the integrity of the case, the site mudbath often left some of its contents.

Afraid so, if the case is damaged or on 110V equipment the most common fail item was the sprung cover on the connectors not doing the full Zebidee.

HSE policy is simply "to remove faulty or damaged equipment from the workplace"

Their stipulation, not mine and that is the criteria I worked to.

As a reliable testing medium no, but every person on the workforce should have a "dont walk past " philosophy drummed into them.

AB

I am fairly sure electrocution was a recordable incident at one time, it may have been removed because the direct cause of injury would be burns or trauma due to pulling rapidly away from the source of shock in a not too controlled manner.

What went on regarding electrical safety would be unbelievable to people today, but other fields were no different Laudenum in gripe water X ray machines in shoe shops Uranium in glass and of course radium in timepieces were just a few examples.

A very common item in the 60s and 70s was a record player using two valves. A rectifier for the mains and a UL84 pentode for the amplification.

To keep costs down no heater transformer was used to supply the valves hence the crafty U in front of the type, most valves for domestic audio were 6.3V heaters these started with an E, but the U series were low current 90V heaters.

This had the advantage that the heaters could be driven from a tapping on the motor winding of the record deck.

The drawback was, no isolation transformer and a record deck that was connected directly to the neutral [one or two did put a capacitor in the signal ground but it was hum prone]

Not really a problem connecting the record deck to neutral, but 2 pin Clix Patents were the favoured plugs for low current equipment, unpolarised they went in the socket any way and as a result 50% of the time the record deck being metal had 240V on it.

AB

The approach some companys have to Elfin Safety is not to analyse to see if there really is real world risk but to put up an arse covering notice.

last year, I bought a secondhand radio microphone system. The microphone had a PAT sticker on it!

The company should also put into practice a quick and EASY way of reporting. and make it a no blame culture irrespective of how any damage may have been caused.

I have seen reporting systems go from just making a quick phone call giving the minimum details to those reporting having to find the relevant web page on a non-inuitive company intranet network and having to fill out a form with mainly unnecessary details. The former was easy to use, the latter was " I cannot be bothered to waste my time".

But it's "safe" on the day it's tested, abused/damaged the day afterwards and used continually until the next scheduled test. It's the wrong approach to safety.