PAT testing an old electric fire

[paulsherwin]

That is actually quite dangerous, because of the risk of touching the uninsulated element with the toasting fork.

[McMurdo]

A few 'lightly guarded' fires here from the 30's including a 3-wire guard fire aimed at the nursery! By the 1960's there were smoulder tests, liquid splash tests, finger tests, etc for portable electric fires

[Hartley118]

Originally Posted by paulsherwin

That is actually quite dangerous, because of the risk of touching the uninsulated element with the toasting fork.

...But then rather few appliances were earthed, so it would have been much less likely in those days that you could grab hold of an earth with the other hand. Unless of course you chose to make toast while enjoying a bath......

Martin

[Lucien Nunes]

Obviously this heater is not suitable for this location, but I would not automatically consider it a PAT fail if the hazard is part of the design, clearly evident from the nature of the appliance, and it is otherwise electrically sound. Certain appliances such as power tools can inflict serious injury or death in seconds if improperly used, just like the fire, but they were made that way and the risk is mitigated by the correct method of use. Where the power tool and the fire differ is that there are much safer heaters available today, therefore a safe system of work might indicate that those extra safety features are now expected and the older device is no longer acceptable for use in a certain situation.

[broadgage]

Originally Posted by paulsherwin

That is actually quite dangerous, because of the risk of touching the uninsulated element with the toasting fork.

Any fule knoweth that toasting forks are only for use with open fires
The correct way to make toast on an electric fire is to lay the fire on its back and then lay the bread on the minimal wire guard.
No toasting fork needed

Did your parents not teach you this ?

[Welsh Anorak]

Hi
Lucien pinpoints my dilemma - I refused to PAT test the fire in case it passed! Although that sounds strange, if I had supplied a pass sticker the owner could then have used it in the let - there would be no reason for him not to. Then if someone got hurt things could become messy. He told me that he wouldn't supply it if there were children there, but I'm afraid that wasn't good enough reason - with the best will in the world things can and do go wrong, and adults are not always to be trusted either.
In the gas world, I'm told one of those 'sixties 'gas misers' or the living flame fires of the Eighties are an automatic fail even if they perform to the standard prevailing when they were made. I would imagine this is similar - as you say there are now heaters of far safer design and there is no particular reason (other than aesthetics) to use this particular one in preference.
Glyn
PS That Mickey Mouse fire makes me shudder! Mickey is scary enough, thanks.

[AC/HL]

Refusing to test it was the correct course of action here I think. It ends the dilemma on your part, and puts the onus on the owner to heed your warning, and as a Landlord to face any consequences of his actions.

[Brigham]

Originally Posted by broadgage

Did your parents not teach you this ?

Charles Belling taught me that!

[pmmunro]

Welsh Anorak,

You did the right thing and were under no obligation at all to carry out any testing. If an appliance is found on inspection to be unsafe, it has failed the safety check process and the test has no relevance.

It is just unfortunate that, apart from the tautology trap, PAT is a catchy name. The periodical process of verifying that electrical equipment is safe involves both inspection and, where appropriate, testing. As Electrical Safety First put it "To establish the safety and suitability of your electrical appliances, the competent person will carry out a visual inspection of the appliance, its plug and lead. For Class I[1] equipment they will also inject test signals into the cable and appliance to ensure their integrity.. This implies that for most Class II appliances, inspection is the whole process, which is logical since insulation testing and earth continuity are beyond the scope of on-site testing. Really what is needed is a new name, perhaps Periodic Appliance Check for Safety (PACS); this would take in regular user checks as well as, where needed, formal inspection and test all this in line with IET, HSE & Electrical Safety First policies.

Originally Posted by dseymo1

Out of interest, does anyone have an opinion on why safety measures like this used to be minimal? The risks are easily identified, and cheap and simple to mitigate.
I do agree withe the view that common-sense used to be more common, but there have nevertheless always been idiots around!
Surely accidents didn't have to happen in order for guarding etc. to be adequate?

Have a look at this in answer to that question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHIEudnoRYU

The LMS railway produced this film with pride; fine for the quality of workmanship but certainly not for the working environment. Today no employer would dare to show working conditions like these and quite rightly too.

Expectancies of life, not just in the longevity sense, were much lower. Road Safety, industrial safety and domestic safety were all rudimentary by comparison with required standards today but rates of infant mortality, expected residual life after retirement (itself a fairly new concept for many since the liberal government introduced Old Age Pensions just before the Great War), and understanding of the causes of disease were also much less advanced.

I think we all agree that appliances like these are unfit for general use and if they are to be retained in an operational condition the question is how to restrict their use to people who understand and can mitigate the risks in a suitable environment.

PMM

[broadgage]

If one wishes to use an old and less safe appliance oneself, it would indeed be desirable to prevent use by others who may be unaware of the dangers.

Might I suggest a simple way of doing this ? Fit the vintage appliance with a 15 amp round pin plug. In the case of a low loading appliance such as a lamp or radio set, then use a 15 amp plug with a fuse (these are a bit rare but DO exist)
Use a 13 amp to 15 amp adaptor to power the appliance from a standard modern socket. Hide or lock away the adaptor to prevent use by others.

A more elaborate scheme for several small appliances is to install a number of 5 amp round pin outlets supplied from a ring final circuit via a switched fused spur in some not too obvious location. Label the switch on the fused spur "WARNING THIS CONTROLS EQUIPMENT THAT COULD BE DANGEROUS DO NOT TURN ON WITHOUT QAULIFIED ADVICE"

[Lucien Nunes]

if I had supplied a pass sticker the owner could then have used it in the let - there would be no reason for him not to

In theory there would, as a competent risk assessment in compliance with PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations) would show it to be unsuitable. But I agree that in practice this would not often be done and the new green pass sticker could give false confidence in the heater's suitability.

This implies that for most Class II appliances, inspection is the whole process, which is logical since insulation testing and earth continuity are beyond the scope of on-site testing

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Testing earth continuity and insulation are fundamental elements of the PAT process that should always be carried out where applicable and possible (which they usually are). I would dismiss any testing service that considered them outside the scope of PAT.

However the whole crux of this case was not really the PAT process (or ISITEE as we should really call it, In Service Inspection and Test of Electrical Equipment), but the fact that the PAT team correctly identified a hazard potentially outside their remit that the owner had ignored.

[pmmunro]

In the case of most modern Class II appliances, other than power tools, there are no external conductive parts and the plug may have an ISOD (Insulated Shutter Opening Device, an official term from BS1363) in place of an earth pin. This makes it impossible to test earth continuity - there is no cpc, nor is it possible to check insulation resistance from line or neutral to earth or the external conductive parts. For these reasons, when checking a Class II appliance with no external conductive parts, there is no application for a Portable Appliance Test instrument of the type normally used on-site and safety checking can involve only inspection. It might still be worth checking current consumption but this is more a reliability check than a safety measure.

HSE INDG23 (Maintaining portable electric equipment in low-risk environments states) "Class II equipment does not need an earth connection to maintain safety. It will not need a portable appliance test, although you should ensure that user checks and visual inspections are carried out as the integrity of the equipment casing is a key safety feature".

In manufacture and type testing, the insulation which qualifies the appliance as Class II will be tested Dby a much more rigorous method such as flash testing at several thousand volts. Early portable appliance test instruments had provision for flash testing but this is not normally a facility of modern ones.

In such cases, where the entire checking process is covered by inspection, there is no testing, but an appliance can still fail if it's condition is unsatisfactory.

It follows that inspection takes precedence over testing and a satisfactory test does not reprieve an appliance rejected during inspection. This is true for all classes of appliance, even Class III, although the point is largely academic since Class III Appliances are outside the scope of PAT. By definition, a Class III device presents no electric shock hazard, but if another hazard such as high temperature or dangerous moving parts was exposed by a damaged case, it should be taken out of use.

PMM

[emeritus]

We had an old GEC fan heater at work. Although metal cased, it was double insulated and had the double square mark on its serial number plate. At some time in the past its mains lead had been replaced by three-core flex, the earth wire being left disconnected. Notwithstanding the double insulated marking, in the late 1990's it failed an annual electrical test for no earth continuity. It now does sterling service in my garden shed.

[Lucien Nunes]

I don't want to drag the thread off-topic but whilst I fully agree that the inspection is typically more important than the insulation test in identifying safety issues in class II appliances and that the insulation test is not applicable to some items at all, I am not convinced this is a valid generalisation:

In the case of most modern Class II appliances, other than power tools, there are no external conductive parts

A quick survey of 20 class II appliances around my workplace revealed that 18 of them had non-trivial external conductive parts, or ELV connections intended to be connected to such, including PSUs associated with class III devices. My inventory will be biased in this direction because much of it is media / communications related and does not include some of the popular domestic items that meet your description such as plastic-cased hairdryers etc. It is not a low-risk environment and equipment is subject to heavy use and possible misuse including exposure to moisture. For this situation and probably many others, insulation testing of class II appliances is not only possible but a valuable means of identifying serious concealed defects. I have removed more than a handful from service for faulty insulation between LV and ELV, that was not externally visible.

[GMB]

I was about to make the same point. If there are external metal parts, like bolts exposed, then you can check they are not live - an essential part of the test. Just because it doesn't have an earth doesn't mean the test is void. You can even go over the surface to test for flash-overs and problems. It is possible for a thing that looks like it is all made of plastic to be more conducting than you might expect. That is the whole point of testing!

I would disagree with the idea that the fire could ever be given a green ticket by a PAT tester (person) on the grounds that it was still in good condition of when it was built. The "power-drill is dangerous" example is misleading because the danger comes from its actual function. The fire is dangerous because you can touch the element - that isn't a requirement of its function.
By way of an explicit example: old appliances were fitted with all-metal 13A plugs. That was the standard of the day - but if you find such a plug during a safety test it is an immediate fail, so meeting old standards is NOT good enough to pass. If the old-style plugs are explicitly deemed to be dangerous then I think the old fire is dangerous too.

[Lucien Nunes]

I am not advocating that it is sufficient to be in good condition as-built (to a historical lower standard of safety) in order to pass. Rather, I say that an item that is rendered dangerous or unsuitable by its context is not inherently a failure in the absence of any electrical defect. Distinguishing between kinds of rejected item is necessary here because of the possible consequences. It would be counter-productive if the owner ignored the warning about the heater being unsuitable, only to result in an electrical shock accident not involving the exposed element because a disconnected earth lead remained undisclosed due to the refusal to test. My solution would have been to test the heater. Had it failed electrically, it would have been taken out of service in the normal way and there would be no contest. Had it passed electrically, I would still have de-activated it and put it in the fail pile but drawn attention to the reason.

Incidentally I have never been in favour of cutting of cables and plugs etc to de-activate a failed appliance, having seen desperate and dangerous attempts by owners to re-instate them creating extra hazards that were not there before the test. I securely seal the plug in a stout bag with red cable ties and a failure notice, that have to be cut off with a tool before the plug can be re-engaged.

We are actually in agreement over the power tool - my comparison was by way of contrast and made the same point as you do; that the hazard of the unguarded heater has been overcome by product development and the older design might now be considered unsafe. However it was also intended to challenge the concept voiced earlier:

It has to be a fail if it can kill you

Which is not true of a power tool.

The metal 13A plugs you mention are intriguing. Other than watertight types such as the Lewden screw-locking variety that are still in use, I have never seen one. Any chance of some pics?

[paulsherwin]

I think GMB is referring to old BS1363 plugs without sleeved pins. I was unaware these result in PAT failure - lots of them are still in use around my house.

[Herald1360]

Ditto here. Of course AFAIK there's no actual legal requirement for PAT-ing, it's just a useful way to claim that due diligence was being exercised to maintain stuff in a safe condition, after the accident

[Lucien Nunes]

Ah, I get it (the pins). There are many who still believe that PAT is a legal requirement, possibly due to poor or misleading information from services that provide it. What is needed is a safe system of work, which PAT can contribute greatly to. The fact that it proves diligence after an accident I think incidental, the aim is to reduce risk which it does if done thoughtfully, as per the OP. Certainly a lot of 'testing' is done haphazardly; I won't waste space here recounting the large number of nonsensical and fabricated tests that contractors are found to have carried out. I would rather read a risk assessment that states that office computers < 3 years old are such low-risk items that they don't merit testing, than a sheet of bogus results and a desk full of green pass stickers applied by someone who doesn't know an amp from a volt and never even looked at the cables or plugs.

Such superficial routine throws the unusual items such as the fire into greater relief.

[Welsh Anorak]

I take your point about testing it, passing and bagging the plug. However it's not difficult for the user to put it back in service with a fresh green sticker - and it does seem odd (to the customer) for me to pass it as safe to use then tell the user it isn't.
There is a story going round here of the newly 'qualified' PAT-er who wrote off a roomful of over 50 LCD monitors because there was no earth continuity (they were class II). His boss only heard about it as the skip was driving off...
Glyn