Parcans Mesh size and PAT testing

[Light Console]

You may remember a few months ago I asked about converted Parcans and the mesh, here.

 

At that venue, the lights in question have been removed from service.

 

This time, I am in a school, and there are 6 or so Parcans. I would like to see what the overall feeling of the BR members is in respect to PAT testing with advanced knowledge.

 

For example, I might have been a woodwork bod rather than a lighting one. As I went around PAT testing in the workshops, I might see that a scroll saw is off centre or missing a guide. I wouldn't spot that the lantern had the wrong sized mesh. As a lighting bod though, I wouldn't spot those faults in the workshops, but the lanterns would stand out as a concern.

 

So, at the end of the day, I know there is a potential problem. I fail the Parcans and no-one gets hurt.

I pass the Parcans, advise the duty holder in the school, and there is a lamp failiure, which burns whoever is below. Who gets the blame?

 

Tricky one I know.

[ianl]

I'm still of the opinion that I've never seen a ray lamp explode( I run a rig of over a hundred ray parcans), so in a ray lamped parcan the mesh is there to catch the intact lamp when it falls out of the lampholder.

 

I have had a number of CP60 lamps explode however and despite the mesh they still shower hot glass over the area below. the mesh catches the 2 or 3 large chunks of glass that are left that would cause serious impact injury if they hit you

 

 

so I would pass it with a mesh and fail it without one irespective of lamp type (if anything I would fail the cp parcans before the ray ones)

 

equally changing a parcan from a cp lamp to a reflector with mogul prongs is as simple as changing a lamp therefore the type of lamp fitted at the point of test should be irrelevant (in the same way all ceiling roses including plastic ones should be earthed incase someone changes it to a metal one)

[johnhuson]

A portable appliance test is about testing the electrical safety of an appliance not about the mechanical safety, however should a parcan be found without a grill/mesh I would draw it to the attention of the duty holder and suggest the item be taken out of use until the problem is rectified. If your purely a PAT tester you are not responsible for the mechanical safety of the unit, unless you are carrying out a complete 'one-stop-shop' service of an installation, then you could be seen as responsible I guess (it's entirely down to what happens in court should an accident occur!)

 

As for the size of the mesh, if it's an original manufacturer fitting then it's their responsibility if this is not suitable for the purpose and not yours.

[Pete McCrea]

If working as a PAT Technician for a company then you are an employee. So if something is unsafe, wouldn't HSAW regs kick in and you be responsible for making sure that a potentially unsafe item was withdrawn from service until it was otherwise made safe? The whole working/employee/sub contractor thing might be the issue there though? You could argue that you are only there to test the electrical safety of the item, however if that item then kills somebody due to the fault you found but failed to action it's fault I'd have thought you'd be up for the high jump.

[Ynot]

If working as a PAT Technician for a company then you are an employee. So if something is unsafe, wouldn't HSAW regs kick in and you be responsible for making sure that a potentially unsafe item was withdrawn from service until it was otherwise made safe? The whole working/employee/sub contractor thing might be the issue there though? You could argue that you are only there to test the electrical safety of the item, however if that item then kills somebody due to the fault you found but failed to action it's fault I'd have thought you'd be up for the high jump.

OK - let's put this into perspective.

Is there a LAW that states that ALL par cans MUST have a wire mesh in front of the bubble?

No?

Then the PAT tech is under NO obligation or bears NO responsibility for any injuries sustained should any bubble so unprotected decide that it's time was up, and shatters.

 

Whether as a service provider (read house tech upwards) decide that in HIS/HER opinion after risk assessments are made that mesh grilles are essential in THAT venue to cover THEIR ass, then that's THEIR call.

 

In the same way, if an RA is carried out on par cans without the grille, and it's deemed unnecessary to have them as an acceptable risk, then that again is the call of the house staff.

 

RA is just that - risk ASSESSMENT. It is impossible to eliminate risk entirely, and it's been said here on the BR before. In around 20 years of using par cans in various modes, I can only recall 1 bubble cracking sufficiently so that itcame free of the main bubble housing. In that case, it was in a can with no mesh, but was over a walk-way, unpopulated by regular people except on the way to/from their seats. It didn't fall from the can, though a couple of shards of glass did. It happened when the theatre was empty - most likely when the lamp cooled down. However, as we seldom use par cans without a frame of colour (and heat shield more oft than not) this is an extra barrier if one were needed.

Some of our cans have wire mesh - and as I buy new ones (if I buy any more) I'll be specifying mesh. But my own RA on the likelihood of it happening again, at a time when one is over people, is sufficiently low to be 'acceptable' until such time as I change out those we have.

 

I suspect this is the way that most houses would behave.

This is wy I voted the way I did - the first vote - and that was that the lamp would PASS the PAT test. What happens outside of the PAT test is another ball game.

[foh_al]

Then the PAT tech is under NO obligation or bears NO responsibility for any injuries sustained should any bubble so unprotected decide that it's time was up, and shatters.

 

I'm guessing that Light Console is asking this question from the point of view of and independent contractor enlisted by the venue to carry out a PAT test. In that case, as has been said, the test is for electrical safety, and assuming everything else is electrically sound, the fixture should pass. There would be no legal obligation to consider the mesh at all. Regardless of that, I feel that there is a moral obligation to inform the owner/operator that there is, in your opinion, a potential hazard that needs to be examined - if, of course, that is your belief.

 

In summary, my vote's for a pass, with caution.

 

Alex

[Ynot]

Then the PAT tech is under NO obligation or bears NO responsibility for any injuries sustained should any bubble so unprotected decide that it's time was up, and shatters.

 

I'm guessing that Light Console is asking this question from the point of view of and independent contractor enlisted by the venue to carry out a PAT test. In that case, as has been said, the test is for electrical safety, and assuming everything else is electrically sound, the fixture should pass. There would be no legal obligation to consider the mesh at all. Regardless of that, I feel that there is a moral obligation to inform the owner/operator that there is, in your opinion, a potential hazard that needs to be examined - if, of course, that is your belief.

 

In summary, my vote's for a pass, with caution.

 

Alex

All this says just what I did - maybe with a few less words....! :unsure:

And the key is in the wording of LC's voting options....

[foh_al]

All this says just what I did - maybe with a few less words....!

Indeed it does! Jeez, maybe I should get some sleep :unsure:

[Andrew C]

Another spin on this. Part of the test is "Does it work?" Now if you were looking at a piece of unguarded rotating machinery, you wouldn't run it, so it would fail. Thus an unguarded can...

 

I'd be inclined to set it aside and explain to the duty holder that whilst not strictly PAT fail, it causes concern under PUWER.

[Pete McCrea]

Andrew C has summed up what I was trying to say really....

 

I was trying to make a point on a wider (and possibly slightly off topic manner) basis that if PAT'ing an item which is unsafe in a way other than electricaly (which is what your inspecting), sure don't you have a duty of care.

 

In the instance of the OP, then not having a mesh might be fine, or might be classed as a fail, something that I could give an authoritive answer on.

[Johnno]

Is bulbs shattering and falling out a problem with ordinary parcans, or are you talking about some exotic bulbs? None of our four cans have any kind of mesh as far as I can recall without inspecting them.

 

Regards,

John

[Light Console]

Many thanks for your posts everybody. As can be seen by the results, most of you think that the way to go is to pass the cans, then bring it to the attention of the duty holder. I hope that my questions weren't too complicated, I just wanted to be sure!

I shall be testing the drama rooms tomorrow, but I shall leave the poll open (if as a member I am able to close it later, I don't know), as the replies have been very useful.

As to failed items, I have been asked to make them unusable, by hammer if needed, and left for them to dispose responsibly. So far it has only been knacked power packs, but could be a great stress-buster!