View Single Post
Old 31st Oct 2020, 10:29 am   #12
Lucien Nunes
Lucien Nunes's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 1,900
Default Re: Ferranti 355 radiogram. PAT Test advice needed.

Herald1360's post #2 is a good summary. ISITEE (in-service inspection and testing of electrical equipment, the modern name for PAT) is not of itself mandatory but it is a recognised way to fulfil statuory obligations under PUWER and EAWR to maintain equipment in a safe condition. Because it is a means to an end and not seen as a desirable thing to do, ISITEE contracts are something of a race to the bottom and often carried out in a slipshod or deficient manner.

The radiogram should go through triage like this:
Is protection class II symbol displayed: No
Is it equpped for earthing to class I: No
Is it made to applicable alternative BS: No
Fail for inadequate protection against shock.
It should never get as far as being tested.

But anything could happen. Having worked in the industry, I cannot help but observe that many test operatives have minimal knowledge and training, often do not follow the ACOP and sometimes don't even bother testing at all, since the contracting firms often expect a barely-possible throughput of work. It might well be failed for:
'Cadbord part'
'Wire is thin'
which are all failure reasons I have seen in real commercial ISITEE results.

My suggestion, steer clear!
Three anodes good, six anodes better!
Lucien Nunes is offline   Reply With Quote