15amp socket shutters

[J Pearce]

Some old school par ceramics have open faced live terminal screws that are easily found by a stray finger.

[Ynot]

Some old school par ceramics have open faced live terminal screws that are easily found by a stray finger.

The key there is 'some'.

 

Many do not.

[J Pearce]

My preferred policy is parsafe or a Thomas style rotation cap thing.

[Ynot]

I really don't see why just the fact that the bases are ceramic would be anywhere near a fail.

Does the cable going into the base have a single layer of insulation or is there 2 layers? As far as im aware single insulation isnt suitable protection for something that can be touched

To touch anything on a PAR with a ceramic holder you would need to put fingers inside.

 

I see that as no different to poking around in a Quartet, or the lamp base of a S4 or similar base (obviously one with a dead lamp).

[themadhippy]

I see that as no different to poking around in a Quartet, or the lamp base of a S4 or similar base

But to access the wiring you have to open the lantern,unlike a par can with that nice hole in the bottom you stick your hand in to twist the lamp

[J Pearce]

And on a par it is standard to need to access the lamp base while live in order to focus it.

[Ynot]

I think you're missing the point...

 

My point is that it is possible to get access to similar, if not more dangerous, parts of a multitude of lanterns almost as easily as it would be t poke fingers into a PAR can.

 

And if we are talking students, then if they have access to one, they'll have access to all lanterns, and as there is a significant risk of them poking around regardless, is it right to fail a PAR can on those terms whilst allowing other lanterns to sail through? I think not, to be honest.

 

And on general safety matters anyone can get a serious burn from the can itself, before you even got to the ceramic, as you could with the body of a S4 etc.

 

My whole point in this thread is that the PAT or whatever you wish to call it, as I have always understood it, (and would be happy to read any specific BS guidance or HSE regs) is a test to look at the electrical safety of items. If an item of equipment is in working order, has no identifiable electrical faults OR any mechanical faults which could result in an electrical problem, and is still in a condition as described in manufacturer's info/instructions/guidance then I can see NO reason why it should be deemed a failure under any electrical PAT regime and saying that a PAR can should fail PAT because a student/whoever can get burned if they touch the ceramic is in my considered opinion quite bluntly incorrect.

 

HOWEVER if any body/school/workplace sees the potential for additional risk from ANY piece of equipment then that equipment can (and possibly should) be removed from that arena under THAT assessment - NOT fobbing it off as a PAT fail just because it's easier to say that.

 

I would dispute that suggesting that something would pass a PAT in one work space should fail in another just because those areas have differing environments. That comes back to assessing each item you use in the conditions prevalent at any given time. So sorry Brian, that's where your argument over the drill falls down. Said drill could well be standard issue in the maintenance guy's van and be perfectly safe in 99% of areas around a site. But the responsibility of the site owner where potential explosive atmospheres might be present would be to make sure that ANY worker - either on site staff or casual labourer - was aware of and complied with their internal rules on what tools could or could not be taken on to or used on that site.

 

If ceramic PAR holders were a legitimate PAT fail, surely the sale of them (or new cans with them included) would be discouraged or even outlawed...?

 

From the first Google page...

Stage Electrics selling the ceramic replacements

 

ESR selling cans with ceramics.

 

Plain and simple, citing a PAT failure for something that is clearly NOT a PAT failure is the lazy way of circumventing the proper way of assessing risks which MAY exist in one environment and not in another.

[themadhippy]

My point is that it is possible to get access to similar, if not more dangerous, parts of a multitude of lanterns almost as easily as it would be t poke fingers into a PAR can.

But to get to those parts you need to take it apart,the vast majority of par cans do not require any disassemble to access the wiring,its there on open view,and so said wiring should meet the standard required,which I believe is double insulated,cans fitted with ceramics, more often than not, just remove the outer insulation were it enters the can,meaning the wiring to the ceramic base is single insulated and a fail,the easiest solution would be to retrofit high temperature sleeving of a suitable voltage raiting

[Brian]

My whole point in this thread is that the PAT or whatever you wish to call it, as I have always understood it, (and would be happy to read any specific BS guidance or HSE regs) is a test to look at the electrical safety of items.

Maybe here's the problem, you really need to get yourself a copy of the CoP and have a read.

 

And is electrical safety solely determined by the earth bond resistance and insulation resistance of an item?

 

So sorry Brian, that's where your argument over the drill falls down... responsibility of the site owner ...make sure that ANY worker...internal rules...

Not disputing that BUT it is still a requirement when PAT testing to consider the environment.

 

Should the PAT CoP contain the following guidance for the PAT tester...

 

"You only need to carry out the basic electrical tests if the client is competent, and has management systems in place, to ensure the safety of their staff."?

 

 

Remember - there is no requirement for PAT testing to be undertaken by a third party. Employers are quite free to decide to undertake it in house and many, who have non-standard requirements, do so. Those are, of course, the very same employers who have good H&S management systems already in place. The problems seems to be those places where the bulk of the workplace is 'low risk' but with a small 'high risk' area. Such as a school with a theatre space. But then again, schools aren't low risk as made clear by table 7.1 in the CoP.

 

 

On the specifics of ceramic PAR bases...

 

1) It is my contention that a PAR lantern with open back and ceramic base does not meet current equipment safety standards. The PAR base is an 'operator control' and there is a significant risk of the operator coming into contact with live wiring. As such this style of unit ought not to be sold.

 

2) Safety standards are not retrospective.

 

3) Your risk assessment probably ought to consider current practice when being drawn up but you are free to ignore it.

 

4) Your Licensing Authority is free to impose whatever licence conditions they see fit. This will usually include clauses that the fixed wiring is regularly tested to the *current* standard and that all other items are PAT tested. A PAT tester should only work to the current CoP.

[paulears]

This surely has nothing to do with tests designed to ensure electrical safety. The test we are talking about is designed to ensure equipment remains in a safe condition after use. If a product is too dangerous to use, then it should not have been purchased for some circumstances, or perhaps never have been made at all. I really don't think non-specialist electrical testers should have their remit extended to deciding if usage is safe - that is not their responsibility, and next thing will be that they'll decided ladders, which of course are banned devices, make adjusting this light thing that has shuttery things that need two hands to adjust, very dangerous, so we'd better fail it! A 10m 13A extension in the swimming pool cupboard for the cleaner's Hoover could fall into the pool. This of course results in a fail.

 

A test is the application of a set of parameters in a controlled manner. The addition of context is wrong. The appliance fails or passes by the application of the process. If temperature is not a test condition, then it should have no impact. Is access to live components a fail? Maybe. I've bought loads of CPC PAR cans over the years. All of a sudden, they had a welded in mesh grill on the back. You cannot spin the lamp. They are therefore safe - BUT - practically compromised. In desperation, up a ladder, I prised the grill off with my leatherman, and with a glove, spun the ceramic. This, I feel should be a fail on the test, because the product has been modified to remove a safety feature. The mod has provided a possibility of contact with the live terminal. It's a fail. However - the week before CPC changed the product, this access would have been open, by design? So the product would have been one of those 'not a domestic product' exclusions - like how we accept thumb sized live holes in CEE connectors. Many school kitchens have these connectors dangling down from ceilings to power Bain Maries etc - happily bending the 'rules'.

 

If a tester sees a removed grill - perhaps clearly visible spot welds - then the product has been modified to a condition different from the factory state. If this then exposes the terminals, it's a fail.

 

We've all seen the standard some testing is done to - do we really trust these people to start applying context and other risks. Have you ever looked inside these dirt cheap table ovens? The elements are so close to the door, and you can see the element terminals, so could touch them too. So you'd fail these for access to hot bits and live bits in the condition they are in brand new?

[J Pearce]

Tony, ceramic bases are absolutely fine in close backed pars or pars with the Thomas style back cap with rotation knob (though does that meet the regs for access to live parts via tool only?).

 

Just because something is sold does not make it ok for use absolutely anywhere without thought for safety of application.

And I doubt parliament would go to the effort of outlawing a specific lampbase when existing broad overarching law covers it already.

[rossmck]

Tony, ceramic bases are absolutely fine in close backed pars or pars with the Thomas style back cap with rotation knob (though does that meet the regs for access to live parts via tool only?).

 

I'd say in most situations where they're used they're absolutely fine without the "parsafe" caps as well - you still have to put your hand inside something at height and generally inaccessible (and even then as someone who has adjusted 100s of the things, it's still pretty difficult to come into contact with a live conductor)

 

As Ynot has said, there's many lanterns you can access live parts in easily (and without a tool) - anyone working in an environment with these fixtures should be competent enough to know not to go poking at live things.

 

I could really throw the cat amongst the pigeons as it were by pointing out that PAT testing is not compulsory. Even HSE themselves say "The law simply requires an employer to ensure that their electrical equipment is maintained in order to prevent danger. It does not say how this should be done or how often. Employers should take a risk-based approach, considering the type of equipment and what it is being used for" - PAT is one way of achieving this (and one that a lot of companies have latched onto as a way of making a quick profit unfortunately) but it's not the only one.

 

As an aside in working in schools here are a few things I have seen over the last couple of years with a "passed" sticker on it;

• Two 15A sockets into one 15A plug with lx tape around the inner cores (because two HO7 TRS cables wouldn't fit through the cord grip)
• PASSED sticker on every single plug at a 15A patch bay by the dimmers - none on the lanterns - does this mean they tested them as extension cords, or that that sticker corresponds to the lantern on the end of that plug at the time it was tested (which does, of course, change)
• 12V birdies (not the transformers, the birdies)
• A low voltage smoke machine remote (but not either of the smoke machines)
• A fresnel which, inspected internally, has a considerable amount of visible copper conductor at the lamp base
• And last but not least, the end of several LX bars (who knows what that refers to!)

The point being, by long example, is that PAT testing by people who don't understand the environment often ends up with some confusion - but there's things in that list above that suggest it's just a box ticking and sticker exercise to them, as clearly some of the above should have failed and others should never have been stickered, sorry, "tested"

 

 

 

[Brian]

12V birdies (not the transformers, the birdies)

A low voltage smoke machine remote (but not either of the smoke machines)

 

Time to slay another myth...

 

PAT testing applies to ALL electrical equipment irrespective of the design voltage, even battery powered torches.

 

The legislation which requires electrical equipment in the workplace to be safe is the Electricity at Work Regulations (EAWR) and this applies to ANYTHING electrical ...

 

“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;

 

As the GN to EAWR says...

 

Electrical equipment

21 ‘Electrical equipment’ as defined in the Regulations includes every type of

electrical equipment from for example a 400 kV overhead line to a battery-powered

hand lamp. It is appropriate for the Regulations to apply even at the very lowest

end of the voltage or power spectrum because the Regulations are concerned with

for example explosion risks which may be caused by very low levels of energy

igniting flammable gases even though there may be no risk of electric shock or

burn. Therefore no voltage limits appear in the Regulations. The criteria of

application is the test as to whether ‘danger’ (as defined) may arise.

[Ynot]

And is electrical safety solely determined by the earth bond resistance andinsulation resistance of an item?

Certainlynot, but then I've not suggested that it is... Have I?

So sorry Brian, that's where your argument over the drill falls down...responsibility of the site owner ...make sure that ANY worker...internalrules...

Not disputing that BUT it is still a requirement when PAT testing to considerthe environment.

 

Should the PAT CoP contain the following guidance for the PAT tester...

"You only need to carry out the basic electrical tests if theclient is competent, and has management systems in place, to ensure the safetyof their staff."?

Actually, to an extent, I would say yes, maybe it should.

If the assumption is that a tester is brought in from outside the company, then he/she will not have any direct knowledge/experience of the environments within even a small business, let alone a large premises. Therefore, without a detailed induction by the company, all they have to go on are the basic electrical safety standards.

 

If on the other hand the tester is an internal guy, then that assumption should be that all tools and equipment being used should be familiar to the tester. BUT as I will maintain the point is that even then, it should not be the PAT test which defines whether any item is used in different locations, but the company's own risk assessments based on the type of work they do and where. It is not the environment that makes the item potentially unsafe but the USE thereof in that environment.

Remember - there is no requirement for PAT testing to be undertaken by a third party. Employers are quite free to decide to undertake it in house and many, who have non-standard requirements, do so. Those are, of course, the very same employers who have good H&S management systems already in place. The problems seems to be those places where the bulk of the workplace is 'low risk' but with a small 'high risk' area. Such as a school with a theatre space. But then again, schools aren't low risk as made clear by table 7.1 in the CoP.

And of course there remains no legal requirement for PAT to be carried out by anyone anyway. (And I suspect this is so due to just the kind of disagreements we're having here!). But schools, like any other 'business' have their own RAs, many of which are based on inexperience in areas like theatre tech, and thus are perhaps more draconian than they might otherwise be - but that is understandable, "when you don't understand something, legislate against it..." But that still doesn't make the condemnation of a PAR can under a PAT correct just because it's in a school. Condemn it because the school has concerns (rational or otherwise) about one aspect of it but do so under a proper RA and I'll accept that.

1) It is my contention that a PAR lantern with open back and ceramic base does not meet current equipment safety standards. The PAR base is an 'operator control' and there is a significant risk of the operator coming into contact with live wiring. As such this style of unit ought not to be sold.

And whilst your opinion I assure you is highly regarded at the moment that's all it is, isn't it? And individual opinion is what divides whether some of us say pass or fail here.

 

Please don't get me wrong - I am NOT a fan of the old ceramic bases, and the majority of cans that get used in my venue have PARsafes or the older bakelite type knobs. But (and that's a word I keep using..) under the actual CoP what exactly does it say about environment and how an external tester can make judgements on that based on limited knowledge? We still do have some which haven't yet been upgraded, and they are at the back of the pile when it comes to equipment needs, and seldom actually get used. But when they do, pretty much all of the guys who might rig them (and there aren't many here who do rig much extra gear) will be happy to use them and do so in a safe manner. I for one don't twist the focus on them when they're on simply because I don't fancy burning my fingers!

 

Coming back to the school I started this off with, the testers had NO idea that the kids weren't allowed to do anything with the lights, on the deck let alone at height. They had 'failed' these PAR cans for at least 2 years, possibly 3, but seemingly offered nothing to the school regarding the retrofit of a safer option like a £10 PARsafe.

[ianknight]

Eight years on and we still can't agree :P

 

http://www.blue-room.org.uk/index.php?showtopic=9947&view=findpost&p=88257