PAT again.

[nearlythere]

How does the panel feel about what we know as PAT testing? As we all know the extent of the testing does not normally extend past electrical equipment which has a 13 amp plug which leaves, in many cases, hard wired equipment, which is forever untested.
We can find APs, RPs and DHs understandably making an assumption that when he/she contracts in the service they are buying compliance with the Electricity at Work Regulations, which ultimately they will probably not be, leaving them exposed to liability if someone gets a zap from electrical equipment.

We call this test PAT (portable) because that is what it originally was and because it is easier said than ISITEE but the process has moved on considerably to include other types of equipment.

I would also ask does PAT testing (as we call it) other than a visual and fuse check, protect someone from a risk from fire? 

Even the HSENI refers to Portable Appliance Testing in its guidance and nothing about testing other types of equipment.

[AnthonyB]

Stuff wired into a spur seems to fall out of the loop. It doesn't have a plug so the PAT tester doesn't touch it and most electricians exclude them from an EICR as not part of the installation, being an appliance.

Many fire hazards from PA would be picked up by a thorough visual inspection and most fails come from this part of the test. With many sites if they didn't have a firm come in to do full inspection & test appliances wouldn't get checked at all so it's a convenient way to get things looked at.

[lyledunn]

I can find no meaningful statistics nor other solid evidence that supports the claim that PAT reduces the risk of fire, or indeed, electric shock. The process may well be an expensive sop to an anecdotal notion but I am afraid that applies to a lot of aspects relating to safety. My livelihood depends on folk not having the balls to challenge accepted practice, so if if you don't mind, NT, shush, otherwise you might have Mrs Dunn shopping in Poundstore!

[nearlythere]

I can find no meaningful statistics nor other solid evidence that supports the claim that PAT reduces the risk of fire, or indeed, electric shock. The process may well be an expensive sop to an anecdotal notion but I am afraid that applies to a lot of aspects relating to safety. My livelihood depends on folk not having the balls to challenge accepted practice, so if if you don't mind, NT, shush, otherwise you might have Mrs Dunn shopping in Poundstore!

Can't have Mrs Dunn missing her weekly excursion to Harrods Lyle.

[colin todd]

No, she gets airsick.

[John Webb]

<snip>.... which leaves, in many cases, hard wired equipment, which is forever untested..... </snip>

If equipment is 'hard-wired' it surely forms part of the permanent installation and should be included in the periodic inspection? (It may be disconnected if it is likely to disturb testing - eg: Paragraphs 612.3.2 on insulation tests where surge protection is incorporated and 612.3.3 where electronic devices which might affect results or be damaged by testing.)

[AnthonyB]

<snip>.... which leaves, in many cases, hard wired equipment, which is forever untested..... </snip>

If equipment is 'hard-wired' it surely forms part of the permanent installation and should be included in the periodic inspection? (It may be disconnected if it is likely to disturb testing - eg: Paragraphs 612.3.2 on insulation tests where surge protection is incorporated and 612.3.3 where electronic devices which might affect results or be damaged by testing.)

You would think so but almost every EICR I've seen names plant and equipment directly connected are excluded from the scope of the inspection!

[lyledunn]

You are correct Anthony. It is fairly common for inspectors of electrical installations to limit the scope of their inspection to exclude connected equipment. That limitation should be discussed and agreed with the person ordering the inspection. EAW Regulations 1989 place a duty on employers to ensure that systems are maintained in safe condition. The system referred to is clearly defined as including the fixed installation and everything connected to it. Clearly any limitations of scope imposed by an EICR will still, nonetheless, need to be addressed by the employer at some stage.