This really isn't getting anywhere. The testing companies quite obviously have their quite established reasonable interpretation of the legislation - and for those who don't sensationalise and intimidate, it's fine - I've no beef at all with it. What just worries me is the inference that PAT is the 'only' way. It's not to my knowledge ever been tested in court and is just a convenient code of practice, method of working that would offer some protection if legal process was started. However, the testing company who bought a tester, sent somebody on a course to learn how to PAT are not quite as protected as they believe, because their testing methods will be put under scrutiny in any legal case after an incident. "It passed, so was safe" won't stand up. They'll investigate the circumstances of the test and use that to support the case (or not).
You're right about it getting out of hand. 2 points - A PAT is the only certificate that is issued to show there is a procedure in place. However it's not the only way to show items are safe - a good maintenance programme does the same, but how many companies can say 100% that all of their equipment is managed and maintained properly? Not many.
Let's just look at a common piece of equipment I use frequently. Testers unfamiliar with it attach the earth clamp, run the test and conclude it is safe. However, this particular piece of kit has the insulation for the rear section bonded by an internal braid as it has to be opened for re-lamping. If this bond has failed - which happens a lot, it should fail - but inexperienced testers use the blindingly obvious place to attach the clamp. This is 100% the wrong place - but they wouldn't know, and would be a good example of how testing by generalists can produce PASS when it should be fail. Those in the know, would fail it and fix it. The nice 17 yr old with their new certificate would pass it. So my view is that blanket testing is perhaps in some cases a poor way to do it. You'd look pretty silly in court when they produce a specialist who proves your entire testing regime is flawed.
This is very good point, and you are 100% right. PAT testers that are good at their job are those that do it as their main or only job, doing it every day. They know these issues. I know for example when my machine says an item passed, that it in fact didn't due to the readings, and I know how to correct that. I also know the other way.
Companies that send someone on a short course, by them a machine and get a guy to do it once a year are walking a tightrope as he will have forgotten everything he learnt by the next time.
Another good example is where an unsupervised testing team cut off every single 15A plug on our equipment, citing them as dangerous and not having sleeved pins. It took a long time to replace them all, and of course after doing so, none had still been given pass stickers - the test not having been completed because they panicked when they saw the plugs.
As for this - I hate when people chop plugs off - if they need replacing, then replace them. However a 15A plug is different to the normal and should only be checked by someone who knows them. I do a lot of theatre work, and come accross a lot of 15A plugs attached to lighting usually, and know that special procedures have to be set up in the machine's memory, and that the visual test is different too.
There are competent testers and there are those who blindly follow a check list. How does the customer know which is which?
?
