What are the changes to PAT- new 5th Edition CoP

[NorthEastSpark]

Hello,

We have a load of PAT testing coming up,... unfortunately.

I'm aware that we have now moved from the 4th Edition to the 5th Edition of the code of practice (September).
Has much changed?

 

[DPG]

Hello,

We have a load of PAT testing coming up,... unfortunately.

I'm aware that we have now moved from the 4th Edition to the 5th Edition of the code of practice (September).
Has much changed?

I wondered the same thing. Will probably end up buying the new one.

 

[Julie.]

The description is:-

Among some of the changes in this edition are:

the requirements for electrical safety management

guidance on how to conduct a risk assessment

testing needed to ensure safety in continued use

changes to acceptable test result limits and a new hierarchy of tests

inclusion of ES1 and ES2 to reflect the changes to product standards

guidance on the new product classifications

updated standard references

revised model forms.

- it "only" costs £40+ postage to find out!!

Unfortunately if you're doing much of this type of work, then it needs to be obtained, even if its only for the occasional cross check.

I will probably end up buying it myself, just because I will occasional need to reference it, but its a frustrating cost/necessity

 

[pirate]

Inspector: Have you a copy of the latest 5th edition COP?
Me: No
Inspector: How do you know that this appliance is safe then?
Me: Because I fkn inspected it, ok?

 

[loz2754]

Lots of changes
No table 7.1 anymore recommended frequency of testing. More emphasis on risk based analysis.
No use of the word portable anymore.
Less emphasis on distinctions made between categories of appliance (fixed, stationary etc).
Max earth leakage for all types of AC powered equipment is now 5mA.
Change to the new classification of voltage ranges, ES1 ES2 ES3. Instead of SELV, PELV etc.
Lots more....
Worth a read, in fact, essential reading for anyone involved in ISITEE.

 

[Julie.]

Lots of changes
No table 7.1 anymore recommended frequency of testing. More emphasis on risk based analysis.
No use of the word portable anymore.
Less emphasis on distinctions made between categories of appliance (fixed, stationary etc).
Max earth leakage for all types of AC powered equipment is now 5mA.
Change to the new classification of voltage ranges, ES1 ES2 ES3. Instead of SELV, PELV etc.
Lots more....
Worth a read, in fact, essential reading for anyone involved in ISITEE.

Well my copy arrived today - not looked at it yet, still crying at being £39 lighter!

I will take a look tonight when I can't sleep....

 

[Risteard]

Well my copy arrived today - not looked at it yet, still crying at being £39 lighter!

I will take a look tonight when I can't sleep....

FedEx have lifted mine so my excitement won't be far behind you. Not sure whether it will be worth my hard-earned £39 but it sure beats the £60 for non-members.

 

[pirate]

You have whetted my appetite now! I must buy a copy...
[automerge]1599817027[/automerge]
Well, if things change, it behoves one to keep up to date, and I'm always learning. That's one thing I learned a long time ago!
oh, and the right tool for the job...

 

[pc1966]

Well I got my copy yesterday. Must say I am disappointed really.

The good (if somewhat ironic) thing is the PAT testing is no more, as they have dropped the "portable" aspect to deal with the obvious issue of fixed things like hand dryers that are not really EICR covered but would not always be counted under PAT regimes.

The move to risk-based intervals is theoretically a good idea, as some stuff hardly ever has a risk of damage due to the environment. But having quickly read over that chapter I see absolutely no guidance at all, I felt that gnawing dissapointment you get from reading management BS and realising you have wasted 10 minutes of your life on nothing. My concern is how can you justify a given test interval if the worst happens?

In the past with suggested intervals it would be fairly easy to argue for the high or low end of a range based on other factors, but now you have to magic some value up and be prepared to stand in front of a
court to defend that without any standards-based guidance.

Any thoughts on this folks?

 

[pc1966]

For now hsg107 has a sane table, but will that also disappear following the 5th edition publication?

 

[loz2754]

Well I got my copy yesterday. Must say I am disappointed really.

The good (if somewhat ironic) thing is the PAT testing is no more, as they have dropped the "portable" aspect to deal with the obvious issue of fixed things like hand dryers that are not really EICR covered but would not always be counted under PAT regimes.

The move to risk-based intervals is theoretically a good idea, as some stuff hardly ever has a risk of damage due to the environment. But having quickly read over that chapter I see absolutely no guidance at all, I felt that gnawing dissapointment you get from reading management BS and realising you have wasted 10 minutes of your life on nothing. My concern is how can you justify a given test interval if the worst happens?

In the past with suggested intervals it would be fairly easy to argue for the high or low end of a range based on other factors, but now you have to magic some value up and be prepared to stand in front of a
court to defend that without any standards-based guidance.

Any thoughts on this folks?

I agree. The removal of the interval tables and the shift to a risk based approach to determine the intervals makes things more complicated for those responsible for testing appliances. I suspect most will just continue to do yearly tests just to keep it simple.
I wonder, if and when the City and Guilds course is updated, whether things will be explained better...

 

[pirate]

I wonder how many folks will initially refer to the "old" rules for testing intervals...on the basis that they served well enough, so to speak?
A client who has 2 rental properties insists I test everything every year, even a freezer which clearly doesn't move. she takes her responsibilities seriously, which is a good thing, but other scenarios are much more difficult to "assess". In a hairdressing salon maybe the hand-held dryers should be tested weekly, due to their very nature, but it's hardly practical.

 

[pc1966]

Very much so. Annual testing has the advantage it is easy to manage and justify, even if some items could reasonably be done on a 3 or even 5 year basis.

I would imagine in a hairdresser it would be a case of staff being instructed to check and report any visible damage or add behaviour every week and then to get you in maybe 3-6 monthly or whatever to actually test things, a bit like building sites?

You would think that folk would notice and stop using dodgy equipment automatically, and it is unscrupulous bosses forcing them to proceed with dangerous stuff, but sadly many folk just don't notice. I am surprised at times to see friends/family with stuff that is an obvious fail, like plugs failing to grip the sheath, or flexes beginning to split open. They are not dumb folk, but that just passes them by...

 

[pirate]

Well, here I am, almost halfway through my 2 weeks isolation and...Hurrah! My copy of the 5th Edition arrived today! Should keep me out of mischief for a few days. Not a lot of book for the money, but packed full of interesting stuff, I'm sure.

 

[Julie.]

Well, here I am, almost halfway through my 2 weeks isolation and...Hurrah! My copy of the 5th Edition arrived today! Should keep me out of mischief for a few days. Not a lot of book for the money, but packed full of interesting stuff, I'm sure.

Nope.

Not interesting....

 

[James]

Well, here I am, almost halfway through my 2 weeks isolation and...Hurrah! My copy of the 5th Edition arrived today! Should keep me out of mischief for a few days. Not a lot of book for the money, but packed full of interesting stuff, I'm sure.

Now there’s a book to read if your struggling to sleep.
By page 6 you will be fast asleep

 

[Julie.]

Now there’s a book to read if your struggling to sleep.
By page 6 you will be fast asleep

Never got that far... how did you manage to stay awake so long?

 

[pirate]

For Sale: Brand new and flipped through once, 5th Edition COP handbook. No sensible offer refused...

 

[Moley]

For Sale: Brand new and flipped through once, 5th Edition COP handbook. No sensible offer refused...

Is it hard enough to hit the wife over the head with? If so how about 50p delivered?

 

[pirate]

not really hard enough, it's a paperback...but a good substitute for the Women's Weekly (for those who remember Victoria Wood)

 

[pirate]

I have relented, and revisited the 5th Edition COP today as it was raining heavily...
My view is somewhat jaded, I confess...
OK, it's no longer PAT, and I get that. I have always tested, say, wall mounted radiators which are variously plugged in or wired in to a FCU. Frankly, the latter have often revealed really shoddy terminations, but that's another topic entirely.
Ok, no more "next test due" (that was already changed anyway) but now it's up to the dutyholder to decide on a testing interval, so he/she asks the tester...thus we have to decide, and who could blame us for referring to the test intervals previously suggested? After all, they were quite sensible for most cases, if you used a bit of common sense.
Now though, you have to justify the testing interval...I don't have a problem with that...I'm a grown-up and perfectly happy to state my case, but maybe the temptation is to state an interval just inside the previous guidelines? Me, I try to apply common-sense anyway, and often recommended longer intervals for some appliances...but then, that massive fridge/freezer is never going to move, is it? WRONG! It has been dragged into the garage since your last visit, and the cable has been abraded en-route...so, not my problem, right?
Oh well, we'll live with it...the Courts aren't exactly bulging with reparation claims over PAT...yet.
Next rant is...Calibration. Not just for PA Testers, but it's a good example. My tester gets calibrated every year, in November actually, so it is due soon. Now, I am not a busy working electrician doing loads of PAT stuff, but nevertheless I send it away faithfully every year, so I can a) be sure it is in good order and b) show any busybody that I have done all i can to ensure it is fit for purpose, thus deflecting any claims etc.
However, since last November I reckon I have tested maybe 50 appliances, as due to Covid i have had no work since March this year, and not many folks want testing done around Christmas/New Year. Here is my question: Would it be sensible for all testers to have a run-time indicator, so that, for example, you should have a calibration after say 1000 tests, or 2000 tests, or 500 tests? In other words, should calibration be tied to actual usage, rather than a time-line? Has my PA tester "drifted" while in storage in my cupboard, doing nothing? I ask this because I suspect that many "part-timers" like me will probably not bother with calibration if they have been devoid of work for a long time. Me, I'll send it off next week anyway...showing you have done it, and with a copy of COP 5th Edition in your bag, you can demonstrate that you have a "system in place" that keeps you up to date. Identifying, and indeed testing, hard-wired appliances, rather than just those with a plug attached, is the new "normal", and that's fine with me...but how many sticker-jockeys will bother/know how/care at all. I'm all for accountability, but I fail to see how the 5th Edition addresses the problems we all know exist.

 

[Simon47]

You would think that folk would notice and stop using dodgy equipment automatically

Yeah, I've noticed that too.
I can't help thinking it's part of that "familiarity breeds contempt" issue. Everyone these days is used to electrical stuff being part of daily life and don't take a blind bit of interest in it as long as it works.

not really hard enough, it's a paperback...but a good substitute for the Women's Weekly (for those who remember Victoria Wood)

Ah, a true comedy genius. Sadly missed.

Ok, no more "next test due" (that was already changed anyway) but now it's up to the dutyholder to decide on a testing interval

I take it that's the no "next test due" on the sticker ?
IMO that's a really really stupid retrograde step. Without that, how is a user picking up an item to know whether it's in date or not ? I know there's an argument that items should never be out of date, but except for the very simplest of setups, there's no way on earth you can guarantee that - sometimes an item will be "missing", and often it'll turn up and go back into use when it's found at the back of a cupboard (etc).
I'll carry on putting next test due dates on stuff - partly because I've a large stock of stickers to use up !

Next rant is...Calibration. Not just for PA Testers, but it's a good example.

I do so little that I just use my MFT. I did forget to return the PAT when I left my last job, but that's playing up and it's not worth sending it in for service. I rely on my Calcard, and if someone wants to try and jsutify that both the calcard and MFT could go faulty at the same time, and in exactly the same (but opposite) proportions such that there's no change when checking - then I'll happily let them dig themselves into a hole.

 

[Moley]

No next test date on the sticker is a weird situation. People see the test sticker and as there's no date they will just assume it's okay to use. On the other hand some would see the next date due and just assume it's fine to use as that date hasn't arrived yet.The problem is people just pick up and use. If there was a big cut in the cable, crack in the casing etc it would be a case of 'it's got a sticker. It's fine'. No matter what's on the sticker the idiots will use it. I'm glad the only testing I do is for our departments tools and as we all work in the power gen industry we all have a bit of common sense (apart from Jeff!!)

 

[DPG]

No next test date on the sticker is a weird situation. People see the test sticker and as there's no date they will just assume it's okay to use. On the other hand some would see the next date due and just assume it's fine to use as that date hasn't arrived yet.The problem is people just pick up and use. If there was a big cut in the cable, crack in the casing etc it would be a case of 'it's got a sticker. It's fine'. No matter what's on the sticker the idiots will use it. I'm glad the only testing I do is for our departments tools and as we all work in the power gen industry we all have a bit of common sense (apart from Jeff!!)

Every place has a Jeff

 

[Lister1987]

Looking at getting a copy as I have 4th edition but don't do enough to really justify it ?

 

[Steve Wall]

Looking at getting a copy as I have 4th edition but don't do enough to really justify it ?

just ordered my copy from Amazon

 

[Paul Cheney]

For Sale: Brand new and flipped through once, 5th Edition COP handbook. No sensible offer refused...

Have you still got edition 5 available? £10.00? (Personal email removed)

 

[pirate]

Nope, long gone...but if you are intending to get into ISITEE then it's worth buying as there actually is some useful stuff in there, especially if you are new to testing

 

[SparkyChick]

@Paul Cheney , your post has been edited to remove your personal email address. We would encourage you not to post personal contact details such as phone numbers and email addresses in public (to try and help you avoid spam etc.) and instead, use the private conversation facilities the forums provide.

 

[MJPD29]

Have you still got edition 5 available? £10.00? (Personal email removed)

He might let you look at it for a tenner