Table Lamp PAT Test advice.

[ericmark]

I do see the point, we have cable designed to look good, be it gold outer, clear outer or other it is designed so cable looks good, and common for the markings if any to be few, internet hunt and two came up where clearly no marking, the one on right said only Cable Diameter: 7.3mm Cable Spec: 3×0.75mm but one on left said EN 50525 - 2 - 31 plus more details, but it is clearly OK to use the cable for a standard lamp.

From what you say seems yours is like this

the advert says "All are 3 amp, 300 volts rated and made in the UK to British Standards BS7655 and BS6500."

So can't see how one can fail an item simply because it has that cable, however it is hard to show the cable does comply without the manufacturers declaration, so we have to use our judgement. Does it look tough enough for the job.

 

[SimonH2]

Unless you are aware of some sort of 'tester' machine that can undertake a "go/no-go" visual inspection, that might present a potential problem in relation to someone whose entire electrical knowledge and experience was based on a one-day course, mightn't it?

Which is why most of the course was in fact on visual inspection. Lets face it, how much "electrical experience" do you need to spot a broken case exposing the innards, or a cable sheath worn through to the coloured cores, or plus where the sheath isn't in the cord grip, or ...

 

[JohnW2]

Which is why most of the course was in fact on visual inspection.

Yes, you said that, but I was responding to your comment that "The tester is a simple go/no-go unit to use and hence needs no interpretation."

Lets face it, how much "electrical experience" do you need to spot a broken case exposing the innards, or a cable sheath worn through to the coloured cores, or plus where the sheath isn't in the cord grip, or ...

I think this discussion could go around in circles. If, per your examples, we're talking about things which would be obvious to almost any sane member of the general public who had had no 'training' of any sort, then one would probably have to question what the 'visual inspection' parts of a PA test were meant to achieve (which 'self-declaration' would not achieve). On the other hand if we are talking about things which might well not, or would probably not, be noticed by the general public, then that would take me back to my question as to whether (part of) one day's training is adequate.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Yes, you said that, but I was responding to your comment that "The tester is a simple go/no-go unit to use and hence needs no interpretation."

Yes, the TEST part of the inspection requires no interpretation.

I think this discussion could go around in circles. If, per your examples, we're talking about things which would be obvious to almost any sane member of the general public who had had no 'training' of any sort, then one would probably have to question what the 'visual inspection' parts of a PA test were meant to achieve (which 'self-declaration' would not achieve). On the other hand if we are talking about things which might well not, or would probably not, be noticed by the general public, then that would take me back to my question as to whether (part of) one day's training is adequate.

OK, while just jotting things down, I missed the parts about inspecting the internal connections in the plug, checking the fuse rating (using a simple rule based on equipment power if no fuse rating is specified). But I still fail to see why you think that someone of moderate intelligence and with any desire to learn can't learn everything needed for basic PAT in under a day - clearly if someone is "thick" and/or has no desire to learn, then ...
If we were talking about using complex testers, including industrial machinery, etc., then I'd agree with you - that would probably take longer to do. But if we (as I probably didn't make clear as an assumption) are sticking to domestic and "office" equipment then it's really not complicated. IIRC (and after all these years, it's only a very vague memory) I was doing PAT more or less solo after probably 1/2 hour instruction as an apprentice - but then I was electrical, but only an apprentice, to start with. I do recall having to "defer upwards" as another of the instructors refused to part with "his" (brought from home) appliance which failed on lack of continuity on CPC - I'm sure any of us who've done testing will recognise the "it's mine, I brought it from home, you've no right to test it or take it away" argument when something fails

 

[JohnW2]

OK, while just jotting things down, I missed the parts about inspecting the internal connections in the plug, checking the fuse rating (using a simple rule based on equipment power if no fuse rating is specified). But I still fail to see why you think that someone of moderate intelligence and with any desire to learn can't learn everything needed for basic PAT in under a day ...

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that - but, as I said, if (at least the 'visual inspection' part of PA testing) is as basic as that, what does it achieve beyond what could be achieved by "self-declaration" undertaken by someone of moderate intelligence.

I suspect that you probably really understand the crux of what I am saying - namely that when people commission (or 'require') 'PA testing' most of them probably presume and expect that the service they are getting is 'more sophisticated' (more 'meaningful#?) than what could be achieved by a person with no previous electrical experience after one day of training.

I actually suspect that some might try to use a similar argument to support the view that someone ('of moderate intelligence and and a desire to learn') with no previous electrical experience could be 'trained' to undertake EICRs in a very small number of days. Would you approve of that?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

I suspect that you probably really understand the crux of what I am saying - namely that when people commission (or 'require') 'PA testing' most of them probably presume and expect that the service they are getting is 'more sophisticated' (more 'meaningful#?) than what could be achieved by a person with no previous electrical experience after one day of training.

Quite probably - if they've even thought about it. I am quite confident that if you got people to be honest, it's mostly a case of being able to tick a box and they wouldn't care if it were done by a monkey escaped from the local zoo as long as they got a certificate that meant the box was ticked.

I actually suspect that some might try to use a similar argument to support the view that someone ('of moderate intelligence and and a desire to learn') with no previous electrical experience could be 'trained' to undertake EICRs in a very small number of days. Would you approve of that?

Wouldn't be much worse than some of the EICRs that have come up here and on other forums
IF such a qualification was adequate for specifically bounded activities, then why not ? The problem though would be laying down the boundaries in a manner that made sense and was enforceable. And dealing with the cases where someone turns up and the installation is outside of their boundaries.

 

[JohnW2]

Quite probably - if they've even thought about it. I am quite confident that if you got people to be honest, it's mostly a case of being able to tick a box and they wouldn't care if it were done by a monkey escaped from the local zoo as long as they got a certificate that meant the box was ticked.

Indeed - but what I've questioning is whether there is any point in requiring a certificate (to 'tick a box') from a thirds party (whether a monkey or a human who had been trained for one day), if the judgement of the 'first party' would be just as good.

Wouldn't be much worse than some of the EICRs that have come up here and on other forums

Indeed not- but that's hardly an argument in support of such an idea!

IF such a qualification was adequate for specifically bounded activities, then why not ?

IF your IF were satisfied, then, as you say "Why not?". However, as you go on to say ...

The problem though would be laying down the boundaries in a manner that made sense and was enforceable. ...

... AND in regulating how well people were performing within those boundaries. However, with the boundaries as they currently are, no apparent effort is being made to police/regulate what id being done, or who is doing it, so that, without a lot of change, I don't see it being any different wherever the boundaries may be.

However, I suspect and hope that we are going to see movement in that direction eventually, with more control/regulation about what is being done, and who is doing it - quite possibly requiring a number of years (rather than one day!) of 'experience' - and, again hopefully, some system of 'registration/licensing', so that people undertaking EICRs unsatisfactorily could lose their ability to continue undertaking EICRs.

... and what changes may one day come in relation to EICRs could be mirrored, although obviously differently, for PA testing.

... but I'm not holding my breath in relation to any of those 'hopes'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

checking the fuse rating (using a simple rule based on equipment power if no fuse rating is specified).

But that is totally wrong isn't it? The fuse is to protect the cable not the equipment. Nor does it take account of switch on surge.

 

[SimonH2]

Indeed - but what I've questioning is whether there is any point in requiring a certificate (to 'tick a box') from a thirds party (whether a monkey or a human who had been trained for one day), if the judgement of the 'first party' would be just as good.

You forget the important difference - if it's a first party certificate then you can be asked to justify the process, training, experience, etc behind it. If it's a third party certificate you only have to justify using that third party - e.g. they were a member of a scam, therefore they are deemed to be competent (yeah, I know ). So for most businesses it's a nice easy get out to just get someone in to charge 50p/item to pop a sticker on everything . That's before you get into the cost of buying or leasing the equipment and having it calibrated every year.

However, I suspect and hope that we are going to see movement in that direction eventually, with more control/regulation about what is being done, and who is doing it - quite possibly requiring a number of years (rather than one day!) of 'experience' - and, again hopefully, some system of 'registration/licensing', so that people undertaking EICRs unsatisfactorily could lose their ability to continue undertaking EICRs.

... and what changes may one day come in relation to EICRs could be mirrored, although obviously differently, for PA testing.

In some ways that suits me. There's no way I'd even consider joining one of the scams or probably any register simply because the cost of entry is more than any profit I might make. I suspect that if things were tightened up, it would be in a way that further suits the scam operators - and if they had a legal stranglehold then they wouldn't even have to attempt to consider market forces when setting fees.
I can't see anything that cleans up the business not pricing a lot of competent people out of it as "just not worth the hassle".

... but I'm not holding my breath in relation to any of those 'hopes'.

Me neither.

But that is totally wrong isn't it? The fuse is to protect the cable not the equipment. Nor does it take account of switch on surge.

No, correct and correct.
IME equipment with a large switch on surge generally has a fuse rating specified on the label - e.g. a freezer rated at (say) 300W says "13A fuse" on it's label.
With a 3A fuse you'll be hard pressed to find anything with a cable too small for it, and if the appliance needs more than 3A then it should have a suitable cable (you don't need to go up much in size to reach something suitable for a 13A fuse).

 

[RandomGrinch]

As has been mentioned before, my view of PAT may not be the same as many others.
We are technicians and apprentices that are lucky enough to carry out the pat with our own equipment in a medium sized science department.
Many other departments do employ outside contractors.
Our system may ultimately cost the department more, but the benefits (IMHO), far outway this additional cost.
We have experience of the equipment that is remembered year on year...
...and we do a proper job!
We have flexibility, if a piece of research equipment is running and can't be turned off, we can come back and test it at another point.
We are also trained in the environments where the equipment is tested. I.e. laser labs, diamond forming microwaves labs, and many clean rooms, using lovely chemicals such as HF acid and pyrophoric gases!

The amount of time to induct a contract tester, or make the environment 'safe' may be prohibitive in itself!

Though I have to say, with the majority of testing happening over the summer 'vacation', getting through thousands of tests, does leave you in a zombified state, and having PAT dreams!

 

[JohnW2]

As has been mentioned before, my view of PAT may not be the same as many others.

Indeed -as I've observed before, on the basis of what you've told us, I think you probably represent the very 'top end' of a very wide spectrum of PA testing, the 'other end' of which spectrum doesn't necessarily bear thinking about

Kind Regards, John