PAT Test Paperwork

[paulears]

I'm not disagreeing about the need to do proper checks - and being honest - no, the cables get checked less often than ideal - my question is simply that I cannot get my head around the cable being an appliance - definitions of which tend to assume it's a device of some kind. I would need to accept that carrying electricity to another device turns it into a device?

 

Gareth's point that cable actually gets rough treatment I completely accept, but are we suggesting that coils of TRS need more regular testing than the appliances they connect? I'm not anti, just slightly surprised cables are being subjected to the same system as the kit they connect?

[J Pearce]

The 13A reels in my work store get visually inspected pretty much monthly, most actual equipment is on a yearly test schedule. They see far more abuse and as they can power multiple bits of kit at once have much more potential to do damage. Consider the effect of a missing earth on a lead powering most of a stages backline.

 

All our cables are tested as appliances. Most staff at my work use the old PAC1800 and a cable adaptor for polarity etc, but because of my HUGE cable stock I managed to wangle a Fluke 6200 tester that does a multi test with one button push for cables.

 

We ident each cable with a sticker (that usually falls off) for retest date and unique ID, but the unique ID is also written or engraved on the socket end of each cable. Required retests are flagged from the tracking system rather than the sticker, so a lost sticker isn't a major disaster.

 

I reckon visual inspection and earth bond testing of cables and captive mains leads would probably find 99% of faults. Our most common fault is scuffed mains leads, followed by cracked plugs. Rarely do I find a fault in an appliance. (All based on testing the 400 appliances and 600 cables in my department at work, on yearly and termly schedules as per risk assessment).

[gareth]

I would need to accept that carrying electricity to another device turns it into a device?

It's a piece of portable electrical equipment - therefore should be part of the same testing and maintenance regime as any other appliance.

 

are we suggesting that coils of TRS need more regular testing than the appliances they connect? I'm not anti, just slightly surprised cables are being subjected to the same system as the kit they connect?

 

Not more regular, no - but they should get no less regular testing. Why shouldn't a piece of TRS used to power a lantern be subjected to the same maintenance regime as that lantern? It's used in the same environment, with the same frequency, carrying the same amount of voltage and current, by the same people, as a part of the same task in the same situation.

 

Basically, any company or organisation which doesn't treat cables and adapters in the same way as any other electrical appliance when it comes to maintenance and testing is leaving a massive hole in their electrical testing system which could quite easily bite them on the arse in a fairly major way if there are ever any incidents or issues involving one of those cables.

 

Let's say, for example, that you have a live 13A cable powering some sort of power tool on stage during a fit-up - the person holding the power tool happens to move it across the stage in such a way that it drags the extension cable with it (it happens), the cable snags on something, the power tool-wielding chippy (not a breed known for their electrical sympathy) gives the cable a yank, the socket comes off and the now-exposed live ends make contact with someone who's standing nearby, giving them an electric shock. Yes, I know, not a particularly likely scenario, but theoretically possible. One of the first questions which would be asked would be when the extension cable was last checked for physical integrity, and by whom. Under the system that we use here, all I'd need to do is note the barcode number of the cable, check the PAT records, and that would tell me exactly what the H&S inspector was asking for. How would you provide this information if it was one of your cables?

[Demo.]

HI all.

 

For those who cannot see how cables can be considered electrical equipment.

 

The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 states:

Electrical Equipment' includes anything used, intended to be used or installed for use, to generate, provide, transmit, transform, rectify, convert, conduct, distribute, control, store, measure or use electrical energy.

Therefore within law all cables are considered as electrical equipment further more.

 

It is clear that the combination of the HSW Act 1974, the PUWER 1998 and the EAW Regulations 1989 apply to all electrical equipment used in, or associated with, places of work. The scope extends from distribution systems down to the smallest piece of electrical equipment.

 

As for testing schedules the law does not dictate any time scale however it is a requirement that all equipment can be proved to have been tested regularly and that any such schedule takes into accordance the likely hood of a unit sustaining damage.

Therefore cables should be tested more regularly due to their increased risk of damage, and that all cables must be treated exactly the same as any other electrical item, namely that they should have unique ids so they can be tracked.

Any cable that can be removed from an appliance such as IEC's etc must also be considered a separate electrical item.

Another thing to consider is that if you hire out equipment and it is taken out of your (companies) control you must retest that equipment before it is used again, even if if it was only outside of your control for a minimal time and even if it was not used.

 

While the scope of the law is open to interpretation (as to frequency of testing,) however if heaven help us something does happen, you will be required to prove all your equipment was in a safe condition when it left your control/warehouse, and if that problem is traced to a cable, HSE will expect documents to prove that cable can be traced and shown to have been in good order when it was sent out, saying a cable was good/tested will not be considered as adequate proof without documents to prove that fact.

 

Remember its up to you to prove your equipment was in good order when dispatched (HSE only need to prove the equipment failed) can you do that for everything or just some higher value equipment?

Also an up-to-date risk assessment on all your equipment (as far as potential to sustain damage) should be undertaken as it can be used to back up your reasoning for your schedule of pat testing.

[adam2]

I do as follows, assign to each appliance a number, written on the label applied to the appliance.

On the label I write the date of the test, and my name, as well as the number.

In a log book kept for the purpose, I record the following

Type of appliance (eg microwave oven)

Make, if known (Phillips)

Location (eg workshop)

Owners name (EG venue owned, employee owned, subcontractor owned)

Result of visual examination

Result of electrical tests.

Funtional test (only for certain appliances in infrequent use, that we wish to ensure are kept not just safe, but in working order)

 

In event of a failure, a report sheet is completed, explaining the reason for the failure, the dangers that could result from continued use, and what other action has been taken, together with a recomendation as to if repair or replacement is recomended.

An example might read

 

"we have recently tested portable appliance no 142, a desk fan, located in the general office.

This appliance has FAILED the visual inspection, due to the gaurd over the fan blades being missing.

Continued use could be DANGEROUS.

We have therefore removed the plug.

Due to the low cost of these appliances, repair is unlikely to be worthwhile, and we recomend that it be destroyed and discarded"

[paulears]

To Demo. You missed the entire point. Of course cables are electrical equipment. My question is to do with the determination that they are a portable appliance, that then falls under the usual PAT regime. I'm quite happy with the need to check cabling, but I still cannot get my head around them being considered an appliance. I'm in a small minority, of course - and as people have pointed out, some of their testers have specific programming to be used to test cables. I'm just interested in what actually constitutes an appliance? A microwave oven is an appliance, but a built in cooker isn't. Just an anomaly.

 

Incidentally, do you actually need to buy two PAT machines? Don't they also fit the requirement for testing, so they can't test themselves, can they?

[danburns]

Incidentally, do you actually need to buy two PAT machines? Don't they also fit the requirement for testing, so they can't test themselves, can they?

 

 

Isn't that taken care of when the tester goes for it's annual calibration?

 

 

[grizzly]

A microwave oven is an appliance, but a built in cooker isn't. Just an anomaly.

 

 

 

Are you so sure about that? Why wouldn't a built-in cooker be considered an appliance?

 

Not a portable appliance, maybe, but an appliance none the less.

 

Anyways, if we try to discard the old misleading phrase 'Portable Appliance Testing', and instead use the term that the IEE/IET have for their code of practice,

 

'In-service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment', the cable debate becomes moot, I reckon.

[Demo.]

Grizzy I do agree the term portable is now outdated.

It should be noted that in 2008 the regulations on what needed to be tested changed to include any piece of equipment connected to the mains via a flexible cord even if permanently fixed.

Therefore a cooker now does fall under the regulations as do things like hand driers.

 

 

 

 

@ Paulears

 

Firstly the post was not directly aimed at you but a reply in general pointing out the law and best practice.

You clearly missed the points I quoted where the law states they are

The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 states:

Electrical Equipment includes anything used, intended to be used or installed for use, to generate, provide, transmit, transform, rectify, convert, conduct, distribute, control, store, measure or use electrical energy.

 

and

the HSW Act 1974, the PUWER 1998 and the EAW Regulations 1989 apply to all electrical equipment used in, or associated with, places of work. The scope extends from distribution systems down to the smallest piece of electrical equipment.

 

Perhaps I did not make it clear enough but the above is in relationship to pat testing and is about what is covered by the regulations.

Sorry I did not think I needed to say that explicitly as I thought others would have understood that, as it was in a thread about pat testing.

[obaka-san]

Out of curiosity, what do the UK regs/standards/etcs have to say on the matter?

 

In australia the relevant standard quite clearly states what info is required, which is then written on a tag fixed to the device after it passes test. Barcodes, ID's inventory tracking, logging, etc is up to the owner of the equipment and whatever policy they put in place to ensure it's regularly tested and maintained safe.

[ramdram]

If anything cables should be fully inspected, inside and out every time they are brought out and put away. And not just for electrical reasons per se.

 

The other day I found to my horror cables, attached to some Pars were still up after a perf in the fffing rain under a leaky tarp!!! This means drying out the connectors, ordinary 15A plugs and skys, and putting the Pars away to dry out as well.

 

This is down to sheer fffing idleness and a desire to get into the bar. We are talking about a tech person who is allegedly mandated to check everything is secure and locked up before going off duty.

 

So never mind the nitpicking about if a cable is an appliance...it carries power that could kill. A cable can be abused far more easily by any number of events and that is all that should matter, full stop.

 

The regs referred to above make specific mention of "transmit", ergo it is an appliance as far as the powers that be are concerned.

[Yorkie]

Grizzy I do agree the term portable is now outdated.

It should be noted that in 2008 the regulations on what needed to be tested changed to include any piece of equipment connected to the mains via a flexible cord even if permanently fixed.

Therefore a cooker now does fall under the regulations as do things like hand driers.

 

I agree that a cooker, hand drier, wall heater etc is an appliance, albeit a fixed one. Can you tell me where exactly I can find legislation of 2008 necessitating their testing please

 

Portable Appliance testing is one thing, but for fixed appliances that are hard wired, the person testing them should be competent to isolate and check for dead

[boswell]

 

Can you tell me where exactly I can find legislation of 2008 necessitating their testing please

 

 

IEE CoP for In-Service Inspection & Testing of Electrical Equipment (3rd edition)

[Simon Lewis]

IEE CoP for In-Service Inspection & Testing of Electrical Equipment (3rd edition)

 

Except that this very useful document is 'just' a code of practice. The only legislation that applies is the Electricity at Work regulations. One suspects that the approach taken by the IET in this matter is a little different from some of the guidance given by the HSE.

[cfmonk]

For our cables (which spend a lot of time outside) we give them a unique identifier (written on the socket) and we also make a note on the socket of the date of the last test. We don't put labels on them because they just come off.

 

We treat all our cables as if they were a Class 1 Appliance. Insulation tests, earth bond etc. is all just as important and as easy to test with the right tester and adapters (our machine is set up to test IEC cables and so we adapt up to 16A and 32A).