15amp socket shutters

[Trav400]

Hi!

 

I've just had some stuff pat tested at the school where I work. Around 10 15amp extension leads failed because of no saftey shutters on the sockets. Is there anywhere I could buy these shutters or will I need to replace the whole socket? If I remember correctly there should be a small spring as well as the red shutter? I have had a quick google search but couldn't find anything.

 

Thanks in advance!

[Brian]

The old sockets do not have the necessary bits in the cover moulding to take a shutter (unless they are newer sockets and it's just that the shutters have gone missing).

 

But in any case you won't get spares so you'll need to buy new sockets.

[Tigglet]

I had a similar issue with 15A plugs. I was told that the plugs had failed as they did not have any shielding on hte live and neutral pins. When I asked a professional in the business I was informed that 15A plugs were classed as an industrial fitting and not a domestic one as a resuld although the shielding was desirable it was not essential.

 

If your sockets are like mine they are usually well out of pupil reach so the safety issue may not be a problem. I would give the ABTT (association of British Theatre Technicians a ring.

 

Hope this helps

[paulears]

Absolutely - the design of 15 and 16 Amp plugs does not require sleeved pins or shutters. However, jobsworths will never believe you!

[timd]

Absolutely - the design of 15 and 16 Amp plugs does not require sleeved pins or shutters. However, jobsworths will never believe you!

 

If 13A plugs by design require sleeved pins, surely 15A ones should too?

[themadhippy]

If 13A plugs by design require sleeved pins

originally they didn't,but being a nanny state someone decided they were needed.

[Brian]

...I was informed that 15A plugs were classed as an industrial fitting and not a domestic one as a resuld although the shielding was desirable it was not essential.

However, a decent PAT tester should consider the environment in which an item is used and can fail it if, if their opinion, it is not suitable for the environment.

 

A 15A (or 16A) connector might well be an industrial connector but that only applies in an industrial environment. Put them into a domestic or educational environment and they are no longer industrial connectors.

[Ynot]

One might argue that a lack of shutters is not in fact a valid PAT failure.

 

The PAT is for electrical safety, and whilst shuttered sockets/sleeved pins might well be a safER option, especially in a school environment, that would not (in my limited experience of PAT rules) constitute a fault - even in a 13A option. Surely PAT is for identifying faults or potential failures which might cause a fault.

 

Of course, I could be wrong... :)

 

This is not saying I don't believe sleeved/shuttered plugs and sockets are the better option, just that failing a PAT on that basis is maybe not the correct result.

 

 

[Brian]

One might argue that a lack of shutters is not in fact a valid PAT failure.

 

Go on then ;)

 

Surely PAT is for identifying faults or potential failures which might cause a fault.

 

Nope.

 

Which is why companies who just plug things into their tester, press the 'go' button' and then stick on a green sticker are crooks intent on ripping off their unsuspecting customers and who ought to be run out of town.

 

The proper PAT regime is a hierarchy of...

 

1) User Checks - with only faults reported and logged

2) Formal Visual Inspections - inspections without tests with all results logged

3) Combined Inspections and Tests - with all results recorded

 

Inspection always precedes testing.

 

The order listed above is, IMHO, the order of importance with actual electrical tests with some sort of tester the least important and the least likely to highlight any issues.

 

The Formal Visual Inspection must be carried out by a competent person.

 

It includes...

 

Checking manufacturers instructions are being followed, including recommended fuse values.

Checking 'suitability of the equipment for the environment or nature of work being undertaken'.

 

 

Here's a question for you...

 

would a responsible PAT tester allow the continued use of a domestic electric drill, which passes all electrical tests, in a location where explosive atmospheres are present?

[paulears]

Brian's comment does make sense - a large church near me did a Son et Lumière event and I got power laid on, and the contractor insisted that the 3phase 63A outlets were interlocked because they were fitted in the creche! Finger trouble (or potential finger trouble) was why schools back in the 70s had 5A sockets fitted. By design, 5 and 15A types had no shutters, so the small 'holes' were a sensible but annoying feature.

 

One question - if a cable assembly is using approved (as in BS) connectors - should the test be extended to add in location and use? Surely the test is for the appliance itself. We cannot fail a 13A, shuttered extension cable simply because it may be used outside, and isn't waterproof - can we? So is it correct to raise the testing bar in a school. I understand why, but does location impact on an electrical safety test? I'm not sure it is?

[sguy42]

Brian's comment does make sense - a large church near me did a Son et Lumière event and I got power laid on, and the contractor insisted that the 3phase 63A outlets were interlocked because they were fitted in the creche! Finger trouble (or potential finger trouble) was why schools back in the 70s had 5A sockets fitted. By design, 5 and 15A types had no shutters, so the small 'holes' were a sensible but annoying feature.

 

One question - if a cable assembly is using approved (as in BS) connectors - should the test be extended to add in location and use? Surely the test is for the appliance itself. We cannot fail a 13A, shuttered extension cable simply because it may be used outside, and isn't waterproof - can we? So is it correct to raise the testing bar in a school. I understand why, but does location impact on an electrical safety test? I'm not sure it is?

 

I think this is clearly an area where the issue of PAT testing is being confused with an appropriate Risk Assessment.

 

The PAT test should establish the electrical safety of the kit, if the tester is concerned about the enviroment or usage of the equipment then this should be flagged to the appropriate person, as you would expect with good health and safety practice.

 

 

With regard to shutters, if they were never designed with them I'd be happy, they conform to manufacturers spec and BS546.

 

However if they have been lost, I'd be more hesitant, first question is, where is the spring? many commercial PAT testing operatives don't open the plug / socket (don't get me started!) so with potentially a loose spring inside there's an issue. Duraplug sockets at one stage were manufactured to comply with an alternative standard (can't remember the number) so whether these would pass with the shutters missing would require further investigation of the standards.

 

sguy42

[adam2]

Absolutely - the design of 15 and 16 Amp plugs does not require sleeved pins or shutters. However, jobsworths will never believe you!

 

If 13A plugs by design require sleeved pins, surely 15A ones should too?

 

 

No, 13 amp plugs and sockets are widely used d0m3sticly by persons without qaulification or experience and therefore have to be as fool prooff as reasonably possible.

15 amp plugs and sockets are not much used in the home these days, it is presumed that they are used in a work enviroment by persons with at least basic training, and are normally kept out of reach of children and foolish persons.

 

IMHO it would be preferable for 15 amp plugs to have sheathed pins, and for 15 amp sockets to have shutters, but this is not a requirement in theatres and similar enviroments.

[Ynot]

Surely PAT is for identifying faults or potential failures which might cause a fault.

Nope.

 

Which is why companies who just plug things into their tester, press the 'go' button' and then stick on a green sticker are crooks intent on ripping off their unsuspecting customers and who ought to be run out of town.

 

The proper PAT regime is a hierarchy of...

 

1) User Checks - with only faults reported and logged

2) Formal Visual Inspections - inspections without tests with all results logged

3) Combined Inspections and Tests - with all results recorded

 

Inspection always precedes testing.

Hmmm... ™

 

Wouldn't disagree, but the actual overall PAT test - including the visual check - is to identify FAULTS on any part of the equipment - and IMHO whether sleeves/shutters are employed is not in fact a FAULT.

The Formal Visual Inspection must be carried out by a competent person.

 

It includes...

 

Checking manufacturers instructions are being followed, including recommended fuse values.

Checking 'suitability of the equipment for the environment or nature of work being undertaken'.

 

Here's a question for you...

 

would a responsible PAT tester allow the continued use of a domestic electric drill, which passes all electrical tests, in a location where explosive atmospheres are present?

Hmmm... (again) ™

 

Would a PA tester necessarily know in what environment any kit was to be used...?

 

Even a competent tester brought in to, say, a large factory situation with little or no knowledge of the factory's operations could be presented with a room containing all the items requiring tests, as consolidated by the factory staff. He would likely look at said drill and it would pass all necessary safety inspections and be deemed perfectly safe for use. In such situations, I would say the responsibility for where such a drill can be used would lie squarely on the factory employees/management who should best know their own environments and what they can/should use therein. So sorry, Brian, I feel that's a poor example.

 

Let me give you another example - one I think I've raised here before.

 

I regularly work in a school with my freelance hat, as I am brought in to rig and operate LX for their twice yearly shows, mainly because they have noone available in-house and they don't allow the kids to do such things.

 

A couple of years back I arrived to start rigging to find a theatrical supplier sat at a table carrying out PAT, and with a pile of 'failed' PAR cans on one side. Having seen these the last time I was down, having been failed the year before, I questioned the fail stickers with the guys on site, as I could see no physical defects at all on them. The answer was that there was no electrical faults, BUT the cans still had the old ceramic lamp bases and these were deemed to be unsafe because the kids might put their fingers in and get burned... Hence their 'fails'.

 

Now - my response to this was that as a standard piece of kit (as far as I am aware you can still buy PARS with ceramic lamp bases) this does not constitute a PAT fail because for any child to be anywhere near a PAR can there is a risk of burns from ANY contact, before they even get close to the lamp base - and as it's agin school policy for the kids to be getting involved with the physical side of lampy-town, then they have already carried out the main crux of their own RA by removing the access to such by the kids. You could argue that if a PAR can fails because of that ceramic, you should fail a S4 profile because just by turning a knurled screw a few turns you can expose the even more dangerous lamp house. The same could go for any number of other commonly used lanterns...

 

So - Is that PAR can a valid PAT fail? Even in a school environment??

[Brian]

One question - if a cable assembly is using approved...

Yes, the environment must be considered.

 

 

The PAT test should establish the electrical safety of the kit, if the tester is concerned about the environment or usage of the equipment then this should be flagged to the appropriate person, as you would expect with good health and safety practice.

But the question for you as the PAT tester in this situations is "Do you put a red sticker or a green sticker on the piece of kit?"

 

 

13 amp plugs and sockets are widely used d0m3sticly by persons without qualification or experience and therefore have to be as fool proof as reasonably possible.

And since 1994 it's been illegal to supply un-sleeved 13A plugs for domestic use.

 

 

15 amp plugs and sockets are not much used in the home these days...

And if they *were* supplied for use domestically they'd need to be sleeved.

 

 

IMHO it would be preferable for 15 amp plugs to have sheathed pins, and for 15 amp sockets to have shutters, but this is not a requirement in theatres and similar environments.

A question I'd ask everyone is "Is a school closer to a domestic environment or a theatre environment?"

 

 

...but the actual overall PAT test - including the visual check - is to identify FAULTS on any part of the equipment - and IMHO whether sleeves/shutters are employed is not in fact a FAULT.

Disagree. The CoP is quite clear about User Checks and Formal Inspections.

 

 

Would a PA tester necessarily know in what environment any kit was to be used...?

That information should be available because it's part of the testing regime.

 

 

Even a competent tester brought in to, say, a large factory <snip> In such situations, I would say the responsibility for where such a drill can be used would lie squarely on the factory employees/management who should best know their own environments and what they can/should use therein.

In a large factory there are going to be a number of people involved in the testing regime (there's even a separate C&G PAT course for people who manage it) so in this situation there may well be someone other than the poor sap pushing the button and sticking on stickers involved.

 

 

So - Is that PAR can a valid PAT fail? Even in a school environment??

If the unit is going to spend its life fixed out of the way then it's fine. If it might end up on a floor base then no it's not OK.

 

 

A couple of points...

 

1) There is no such things as 'PAT Testing'. Its proper name is 'In Service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment". Think of it like that and it should make it clearer as to why things other then the earth bond resistance need to be considered.

 

2) The word 'Environment' doesn't mean 'home' or 'school' or 'factory'. It means things like 'outdoors' or 'fixed 6m up on the ceiling' or 'inside a hopefully empty petrol storage tank'.

 

3) To equate the risk of an electric shock with something burning you is not a valid comparison. Our reflex to heat is to move away and whilst a surface burn can be nasty it's unlikely to be fatal. An electric shock is a very different beast.

[Owain]

Would a PA tester necessarily know in what environment any kit was to be used...?

 

Even a competent tester brought in to, say, a large factory situation with little or no knowledge of the factory's operations could be presented with a room containing all the items requiring tests, as consolidated by the factory staff. He would likely look at said drill and it would pass all necessary safety inspections and be deemed perfectly safe for use.

 

Not by a competent tester it wouldn't be.

 

 

Equipment must be suitable for its environment and that's the point about in-service inspection and testing.