It has all been said before,but.

[Spazz]

But how many joe public know about the IET, not long the COP.

Its down to the HSE to make this known to everyone and yet again they failed!


I have emailed my local authority Environmental Health Office to see if they will support me in raising awareness of electrical equipment and their requirements to maintain it - lets see what their response is.

I will post it on here when they reply - If they reply


Im just thinking a few hours giving advice for free could boost the awareness and customer base for my business

So win win on all sides if they go with it.

 

[MarkieSparkie]

Thats why there is a table in the IET COP for In service testing of electrical equipment giving the frequency of testing equipment.

COP Table 7.1 only specifies the initial frequency of inspection and testing. After the equipment's first I&T, the frequency of the next (and subsequent) I&T is set at the discretion of the PAT tester based on any circumstances that may effect the continuing safety of the equipment.
Four main areas need to considered :
1) The Environment - less likely to be damage in a benign environment e.g. an office, more likely in a an arduous environment e.g. a construction site or workshop.
2) The users - if damage is reported by the users as it occurs, the I&T frequency can be longer. If on the other hand there is likely to be unreported abuse of equipment, the I&T frequency should be shorter.
3) The equipment construction - Class 1 equipment depends on a sound earth connection with the fixed electrical installation for safety. Class 2 equipment is not dependent on the integrity of the fixed installation. Recorded testing, but not inspection, can be omitted at the discretion of the PAT tester if the equipment is Class 2 and in a low risk area e.g. office.
4) The equipment type - A hand held appliance is more likely to damaged than a fixed appliance. If the appliance is also Class 1 the risk is increased again, as stated earlier.

 

[the pict]

Undoubtedly, but how many will put their hand up if somre poor sod gets whacked by an iron , it'll be a case of " but you should have told me" not, OK M'lud' fair cop I wanted to save a few quid so I compromised on safety.

Pict

 

[oldtimer]

Undoubtedly, but how many will put their hand up if somre poor sod gets whacked by an iron , it'll be a case of " but you should have told me" not, OK M'lud' fair cop I wanted to save a few quid so I compromised on safety.

Pict

Yep when they brought the regs out to do PAT testing they did not realise just what they were doing yes the checking of electrical equipment in the workplace makes it safer but ask this they now have enough data to crunch the numbers and find out what the % is of failures against PAT testing and how much equipment % wise fails against the actual injuries or deaths in other words if these rates dont go down then PAT testing intervils will go up its all economics until its one of your loved ones that gets killed.

Hence whywe got RCDs not because it would be safer but because a MPs daughter sadly gotelectrocuted but then again how many Joe publics daughters got electrocutedbefore this and they ended up as a statistic