Robert Atkinson will be proud of me :)

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

When PAT testing became the latest thing our chief engineer decided it would save a lot of money if all kettles in the offices were rounded up and put in a skip. The electrical chap in charge of this pogrom started with the chef’s kettle. Edict very quickly changed to company providing fixed water boilers in convenient locations, much more sensible as it got rid of the need for PAT testing, it also reduced risk of scalding from spilled boiling water.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

As other have stated there is NO legal requirement for ITEE (formerly known as PAT). There IS a legal requirement thet work equipment is safe (PUWER, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998).  ITEE is good practice in this respect. If an employee is injured by faulty equipment even if it was inspected that day the employer is still liable and worse case the boss could face a manslaughter charge. The HSE and courts will take a proper ITEE program into consideration. Of equal importance to the boss (maybe more to the share holders) is that if they don’t have a program their liability insurance will want to reclaim any settlement  to the victim from the employer.
Anything sold must also be safe.

Of course the real benefit is fewer injuries and deaths. It’ a shame that testing has got such a bad name. This is mostly the fault of overzealous, ignorant or just plain greedy testers.

Robert.

 

[David AmbroseParticipant @davidambrose86182]

When I was an engineer cadet I was up a ladder changing an ES light bulb (DC) and got a shock off the unshielded thread on the bulb. I didn’t fall off.

[SteviegtrParticipant @steviegtr]

When i had my company, we pat tested around 2500 item every year for a large blue chip company. They were in Casteford & Halifax & made the famous after eight mints etc. When testing a 13A plug top . The 1st job was to open the plug & inspect the terminals & fuse size for the appliance it served. Correct fuse size, cord grip, & of course the screw tightness of the terminals. At that time there was no requirement of the shielding of the live & neutral plug pins.This is maybe a later requirement. The only equipment not fully tested was some electronic gear like printers & photo copiers, which had padding resisters & capacitors to the chassis making it impossible to get a correct reading on the tester. Any item that failed was put in a locked cabinet with only one key . The key was in my possession. If the company wished then i would take a item out & repair to the correct standard. If not it would have to dispossed of.

Steve.

[Charles LamontParticipant @charleslamont71117]

A friend I have now lost track of had a couple of patents, IIRC one for the Plug Tug. (I first typed ‘friend’ as ‘fried’, not entirely inappropriate for the thread!)

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

 

A clever idea, that Plug Tug

https://www.activehands.com/product/plug-tugs/

MichaelG.

 

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

In my last few years before retiring I was moved to what could be called a general services department, though I don’t think it had such a name.

I was given PAT training and part of my general services was carrying out that.

I learnt that an organisation (this could be a company or a voluntary society) can test its own equipment provided it is happy to show the testers are sufficiently competent, and work to the proper process itself and to the desired frequency. For power-tools heavily-used in rough conditions that might need be six-monthly, for office equipment, two or three years may be adequate; but the management has to decide that in a sensible way.

Most of our equipment was tested annually; some two-yearly I think. Anything special, such as a prototype; before first use.

Computers are a special case because they are too easily dmaged by the ordinary PA test applicable to a power-drill or a kettle. One reason the company moved its PA testing to internal staff was said to be a contractor damaging a lot of IT equipment by not testing it correctly.

 

In a way, it was rather like our club scheme for testing boilers: ensure the testers know what they are doing, and follow the instructions! The horror stories of managers destroying perfectly good equipment and the like, suggest to me incompetent senior management loading people with responsibilities for which they have not been trained, have no experience and are given no support.

Sadly, I fear such middle-managers act as they do out of both fear of the responsibility, and fear of admitting ignorance, so need learn what they and their staff are supposed to do – and what they are not supposed or do not need do.

[John MCParticipant @johnmc39344]

My employer insisted that any new purchase electrical appliance must be tested before it was allowed to be used.   It was soon realised that it was unnecessary, at the time, for new equipment.  The employer insisted it was, better safe than sorry and so on.   It did cause some annoyance.   The truth eventually came out, it was done to get the device on to the system for future checks.  If we were told this in the first place it would have saved a lot of bad feeling.

One of the PAT testers once got a bit to enthusiastic.   A 24 volt system on a liquid nitrogen pump was given the full 240 volt test.  That turned out to be rather expensive!

[Author]

Posts