PAT testing

copier_guy

hi,

posted here as i thought i may get a better response from the work board.

one of our devices in a customers (trying not to give too much away) failed a anual PAT test.

I was sent out to investigate the problem. I dont no that much about PAT testing but am fully trained on the device.

I dont no what part of the PAT test the device failed on.

having found no problems from my point of view i called my manager, he was wanting me to give our customer a guarantee that everything was ok.

Despite the PAT failure.

I refused.

I am not a PAT certified tester and wouldnt do it

if i had done it and the customer had been injured or say the office burned down, am i liable for prosecution as well as my company?

thanks

phill99

Say that you have tested it, but that it needs re-pat testing.

keystone

phill99 wrote: »

Say that you have tested it, but that it needs re-pat testing.

Agree with Phil.

OP - How do you know that the tester who failed it did it properly with correctly calibrated equipment and why have you not been provided with a copy of the documentation which says how it has failed from which to fault find.

Your manager is a total numpty to put you in this position.

Cheers

copier_guy

thanks for the replies.

I dont no if the tester used calibrated quipment or what it failed on. He too was a contractor whho tested all the equipment and just happened to fail our device.

I advised our client to get him back for a re test

I wanted to make 100% sure my back side was covered as this manager as a habit of usig us as bullet shields when he makes mistakes

keystone

copier_guy wrote: »

I wanted to make 100% sure my back side was covered as this manager as a habit of usig us as bullet shields when he makes mistakes

Oh - got a boyfriend higher up the management tree has he? Well happily you've discovered that he's right in the middle of doing that now before you start to resemble a colander.

Cheers

sillygoose

You really need to know what it failed on, there could be a legitimate electronic reason for the 'failure' if it is really that. Some equipment has strong incoming filtering that causes too much leakage current to earth for example (to current standards). Not much can be done if its designed that way but the PAT testers machine may show it a fail. Or it could be as simple as visible signs of damage to the lead can be a fail, easily rectified. Other fails by current standards could be incorrect rating fuse in the plug or the stripped cables in the plug not being crimped, just left as strands. The tester would have attached a lead to any bare metal and basically tested the earthing from that back to the plug, you can ensure that path is correct low impedance. Unless the equipment is 'double insulated' and doesn't need an earth. The tester may have mistakenly assumed some metalwork or chassis should be earthed and so put the flying lead on it and it of course failed.

jc808

copier_guy wrote: »

one of our devices in a customers (trying not to give too much away)

copier_guy wrote: »

copier_guy

LOL

I used to work with Canon engineers (I work in the print game) and they refused to PAT test certain machines for customers as apparently the voltage up the earth could fry certain components (This was only on the highend machines IIRC)

ohreally

Is the appliance class 1 or II?

The client should be provided with a certificate which details the tests conducted and the values. You're really looking at insulation resistance, and if the reading is anywhere near the threshold there is likely cause for concern.
Class 1, likely problem may be a high resistance - has tester allowed for flex resistance in his reading - should be <.1Ω less cord R.

Conductor
size Resistance (Ω/m)
1.25 - 0.0156
1.5 - 0.013
2.5 - 0.008

Going beyond these tests, the tester may have found earth leakage in the protective conductor and failed on this.

You really need to get the test readings to investigate further.

madjay

copier_guy wrote: »

hi,

posted here as i thought i may get a better response from the work board.

one of our devices in a customers (trying not to give too much away) failed a anual PAT test.

I was sent out to investigate the problem. I dont no that much about PAT testing but am fully trained on the device.

I dont no what part of the PAT test the device failed on.

having found no problems from my point of view i called my manager, he was wanting me to give our customer a guarantee that everything was ok.

Despite the PAT failure.

I refused.

I am not a PAT certified tester and wouldnt do it

if i had done it and the customer had been injured or say the office burned down, am i liable for prosecution as well as my company?

thanks

Yes you would be liable for prosecution if it was found that the Fail equipment you said was ok caused the fire or injury.

ListysDad

I've recently been researching another issue but came the link below on the Health and Safety Exec's website. It blows wide open some of the BS/Myths that exist around PAT testing. Enjoy

http://www.hse.gov.uk/electricity/faq-portable-appliance-testing.htm

David

ohreally

ListysDad wrote: »

I've recently been researching another issue but came the link below on the Health and Safety Exec's website. It blows wide open some of the BS/Myths that exist around PAT testing. Enjoy

What BS & myth would that be then?

Without a properly conducted earth test how would you prove the effectivness of a protective conductor and more importantly how would you explain to a judge when you are in the dock as the result of a prosecution due to an employee being injured or worse?

From HSG 107 "Nearly a quarter of all reportable electrical accidents involve portable equipment. The vast majority of these accidents result in electric shock.".
"The particular legal requirements relating to the use and maintenance of electrical equipment are contained in the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 (EAW). These Regulations apply to all work activities involving electrical equipment."

"For safety reasons some electrical equipment relies on the metallic (exposed conducting) parts of the equipment being effectively earthed. This type of equipment is known as ‘Class I’. If this earth connection is lost there is a possibility of the exterior of the equipment becoming live, with a potentially fatal result. Anyone touching live metal will be in contact with electricity."

"EAW Regulation 4(2) requires that all systems be maintained, so far as reasonably practicable, to prevent danger. This requirement covers all items of electrical equipment including fixed, portable and transportable equipment".

"Equipment that is held by hand or handled when switched on will present a greater degree of risk because, if it does develop a dangerous fault, the person holding it will almost certainly receive an electric shock"

Read indg354 (HSE) http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg354.pdf does that suggest BS & myth?

How do you rely on the integrity of RCD's if they are not being tested?

I am not a PA tester, but I do have a background and I volunteer my time freely to selected charities. I regularly see items in such a state as to make your eyes water.

Which one of the following arrangements would not meet the
requirements of the IEE Code of Practice?
(a) Class I equipment supplied by a 1.5 mm 2 three-core extension
lead connected into a 13 A three-pin socket outlet.
(b) Class II equipment supplied by a 1.5 mm 2 two-core extension
lead connected into a 13 A three-pin socket outlet.
(c) Class I equipment supplied by a 2.5 mm 2 three-core extension
lead connected into a BS EN 60309-2 socket outlet.
(d) Class III equipment supplied by a two-core flexible cord
connected into the secondary of an isolating transformer
supplying SELV lighting equipment.

When conducting insulation resistance tests on Class I electrical
appliances, not exceeding 3 kW, the minimum value
would be:
(a) 0.5 M Ω
(b) 1.0 M Ω
(c) 2 M Ω
(d) 7 M Ω

An insulation resistance test of a Class I household portable
appliance to BS 3456 is to be carried out using the earth leakage
method. The maximum acceptable value is:
(a) 0.25 mA
(b) 0.5 mA
(c) 0.75 mA
(d) 1 mA

There is a degree of competance required to conduct inspection and test, especially when testing 3 line (phase) equipment and to suggest this is BS is being shortsighted and lacking understanding.

In-Service inspection & test is just as necessary as periodic inspection and test.