On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 08:26:38 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 16:01:32 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 07:16:29 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 14:33:15 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 03:04:00 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 16:52:42 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 08:25:10 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 15:53:45 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 07:34:06 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 14:44:19 UTC, wrote:
On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:05:57 PM UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 04:07:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 10:08:54 AM UTC, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 02/02/2018 09:26, Andy Burns wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote:

he wouldn't be able to sell these
lamps because 'They would need PAT testing, first'

I can only think of one device I've purchased new, that came ready PAT
tested (an oscilloscope scope, the nice reseller had opened the box,
upgraded the firmware, included a UK mains lead and stuck a PAT sticker
on it).

I think the retailer is over-egging the PAT pudding.

Thanks Andy
It does seem a bit strange.
I can buy me a little PAT tester (probably 2nd-hand) - and do a formal
test, and stick a sticker on the lamp - but then (to be strictly
correct) you're into the calibration thing, which carries additional costs.
Bit of a slippery slope, perhaps?

The more important part of a PAT test is the viaual inspection. Either way, to carry one out and for it to have any weight, you would need to have a City & Guilds in PAT testing (at least that was the requirement about 10 - 15 years ago when I did it (one day course (not even a day if I recall correctly).

Cheers

Chris

On the first point, correct. This will pick nearly every fault up in
most circumstances.

As far as the second goes, Weight with who?

Can you justify that statement?

AB

I can't justify it with chapter & verse, but the day something one has PAT tested catches fire the next week, HSE or someone might well come looking for your qualification(s)


No they will not. As explained by our PAT tester after an item has been tested all it means is that item was safe when tested it means NOTHING else.

If something happens to the item it does NOT mean the PAT tester is at fault, neither the machinary or the person doing the tests.
Which is why PAT testing is pretty much a waste of time, unless it picks up something that has failed, it can NOT tell you that an electrical product won't go faulty in the future.


An insurance company will clutch at straws to try to avoid a payout.

So what's new.

Although not a guarantee, a PAT test is normally understood to involve
the application of a label carrying the next inspection date.

But doesn;t have to infact ours no longer use this method and our place is the only client where he is told to include a next test date.
He agreed with me that this isnlt required by law.

Teh only requirement is that the device must be safe.


Testing isn't a legal requirement.

Yes I know.


Testing is a nice easy option fo an MD for instance, to demonstate
that he did everything that was reasonable to ensure the safety of his
workforce.

or any admin that haven't a clue about what they are responsible for.


The
inspection date is defined by the environment the item is used in,

can be for those in rough envioments the item has to be tested more often.


device type and previous failiures of that type of equipment.

I would be very very surprised if the PAT tester wasn't held
accountable.

They aren't, unless of course they have caused the problem.

Suppose you test a soldering iron, 10 mins later a student or anyone
rests the iron on it's mains lead exposing the inner live, earth, nuetral cables.
That is a PAT test FAIL.
So is it really your fault if that student or anyone comes along plugs it in and electrocutes themself is that your fault ?
What happens if it happenes a week later, or a month or a year.....
Whenn do you think it becomes the PAT testers fault ?

I think if there is an accident, the HSE will step in and identify
possible causes. In all likelyhood they will come to the conclusion
that a different iron or more supervision would be needed.

I doubt that as it would be up the the H&S in the instituition.

Electrocution is a notifiable accident.

Lots of things are, here any cut longer than 1cm HAS to be recorded.
But not everything has to be reported to the HSE, maybe a death has to be.

Apologies I was wrong. It no longer is listed as reportable. The fact
that the victims insn't operational anymore is though :-)

Some of them are, but they don't always know how damged they have become, an example is James Wilkinson Sword on here, he's imune form electric shocks and the cold or so he claims.




But if the earth connection in the iron was not making contact and a
film of oxide on the separated ends was present, I would imagine that
there would be repercussions. If it were a fatality and the company
had previous form, then I would certinly hope that the directors were
penalised at least.

Nothing to do with PAT testers though.

Everything of relevance would be under scruitiny, if the company had a
testing regime, the practice would be evaluated but still wouldn't
guarantee that the company wouldn't be penalised. If the company
didn't have a testing regime it would be up to them to say what they
did to prevent the death/ injury.

They'd have to do that even if they had PAT tested the device.

remmeber new stuff doesn't have to be PAT tested.

Neither does old stuff.

But new stuff yuo assume is OK if suplpied by a compented retail outlet.
But picking up a drill off a building site you can't be a sure it'll be OK.
A user can do some checks for themselves.


Oh dear, I had to come back on that one :-)

I'll ask the spotty entity at Argos about the insulation class of my
next TV

:-)

Users must inspect items themselves. They may not have an Electrical
PHD or even a brain cell to spare after the basic life functional
needs are met, but they have a responsibility to themselves and
others.

In the event of a groundworker incident
involving his brand spanking new drill though, there may be questions
as to why it wasn't 110V.

It doesn't have to be 110V. And if it is new it is assumed to be safe to use.

No, but a double insulated appliance, while excellent in the dry
workshop can be lethal used at the top of a ladder in wet conditions.


A testing regime should spot this.

Yes it should depending on what was tested for. But it still wonlt stop the product becoming faulty the next day, and a sticker saying next test date will NOT change that, which is why I've said we shouldn't be using such things as next date.

Students have families who want them home safe too :-)

I want the students to leave the lab as quickly and safely as possible.

I dont think anyone is beyond prosecution by the HSE if
they have injured themselves or others through negligence, and handing
over a dangerous bit of kit seems fairly negligent to me.

It would be if you handed over kit that failed it's PAT test.

Well if it passed and no serious errors of judgement occurred, I think
he did everything reasonable :-)
Just because something is passed it doesnlt make it safe by default, the user still has to know how to use it.
That is why I produced my H&S poster regarding soildering irons.


That's a totally different ball game, although the same things apply.
I'm not sure but are grinding wheels and the like inspected regularly?

I assume so, but I've no idea, not having one in the lab it doesn't really concern me.

Lifting tackle is.

Ours used to be too, every 10 years I think, and that's even though we didn't use it.



Interestingly we are having our computerc scince building closed down this weekend because of some electrical installation fault.

Nice to find the problem before the incident :-)

Buildings been there about 15+ years.

As I said, if it's before the incident it's good.

Yes but why hasn;t it been noticed before is what I'd like to know.

The line is :-
"The present configuration of the board is not only contravening health and safety but is a serious fire risk."

But Ive no idea how long it has been like this.


We had a similar problem, wiring not carried out to spec around the
same time period too, it was found during a department refit.

I think the same has happened here but can never be sure.


I don't know the details, it was put right in a few days and
everything went quiet. The person overseeing the original contractors
is still in the company and part of the management team :-)

That makes sense probbaly got promoted as soon as the problem was noticed, same sort of things happen here. if you have someone that can't do the job then promote them because it's easier than sacking them.


Sacking for incompetence is only applied to people like shelf stackers
and burger flippers. The insecurity of the incompetents job is
inversley proportional to status.

Yes something like that. :-()


Theres a chap in Washington who is living proof!

AB