On Monday, 17 July 2017 11:34:57 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 13:29:44 UTC+1, tabb.y wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:08:44 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 10:17:55 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:

Much earlier in the thread there were plausible examples given of how in
effect PAT-testing criteria would catch a lot of risky equipment before
it actually burst into flames.

In most cases it wouldn't, a visual check would be more likely to find serious faults.

Dave's soaked braincell strikes again. Just how would a visual inspection be more likely to find serious faults than visual inspection AND electrical testing, which is what PAT is?

Just because you have no idea.

I usually don't bother reading you arguing with the other wallies here.