Not my speciality so please forgive if I've misunderstood.

I thought all electricans had to be trained to 17th edition now?

Is it necessary to give further training?

I think if I were a qualified 16/17th Ed electrician I would feel a little miffed, if training for PAT testing was given.

They should know where to find in the Wiring Regs the requirements of PAT testing and what to do/interpret results etc.

PAT testing is pretty noddy stuff

Smurf,
There is no requirement for any electrician to be "17th" as this only covers a small area of the industry, namely fixed installations in buildings.
It is not relevant to apliances or any machinery what so ever.
For example, a brand new CNC machine tool wiring would bear no resemblance to the requirements of the 17th, nor should it.
Think of it as once the electric leaves the structure of the building the 17th does not apply.
This is made clear in the scope of the regulations.
IMHO the differences 16th to 17th are minor really.

Yes it would justify them as PST testers. A competent person is someone who has sufficient practical experience and technical knowledge and understanding to carry out their work in a safe and efficient manner and they also must be aware of their limitations. They already have the majority of this from what you stated and just require the brief overview of what ids required to compelte PAT testing. This would free the qualified PAT tester time and more than likely save come money.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?
However, I've met some 'qualified electricians' in my time who I wouldn't have trusted to change the fuse in a plug, let alone carry out in-service inspection & testing.

I would say that some amount of training, to make sure all the testers are across the process, and can be properly deemed competent for the task in hand, would be a good idea.

You could argue this about any job skill - there will always be people who appear competent on paper, have letters after their names and still do a bad job.

As farrell says, you don't need to be an electrician anyway.
Understand whats required for PAT testing - HSE advice, the practicalities of the task etc
Basic electrical principles
Know how to use a PAT testing box

PAT is another example of Gold plating h&s, of course there are those with vested interests in PAT testing.

As ever, sure you could get a belt of wiggly amps from poorly maintained equipment, particularly if used in a harsh environment.

But for the vast majority of people at work in an office/factory environmentsetc -the risks are of a pretty low risk order.


I think too many low level h&s advisers etc, don't really look at the bigger picture of h&s - but get bogged down in the detail of relative trivia of PAT and the like.

Smurf,
You are welcome, but as I say not "all" sparks will be trained on fixed installs.

Being an engineer with letters, and a qualified electrician and PAT tester, I suppose I have a vested interest in "selling" PAT.
HOWEVER, I do believe that much of the PAT done is OTT and is specified by unqualified personnel who do not have a full understanding of the hazards and risks.
If I do PAT which I HATE, then I will always in my report recommend protracted intervals of testing where possible.
I had one customer who tested everything outside the offices every 3m and everything else every 12m including transportable equipment, IT equipment etc.
I explained at length that this could be extended and offer them a cost saving, only to be told that their admin costs for this would outstrip the savings!

There are one or two points, personnel only PAT trained will come unstuck now and again due to lack of background knowledge, also qualified sparks will come unstuck sometimes are there are a few "peculiarities" of PAT procedures.
Would you allow a PAT testing only trained person to undertake repairs? I know I for one would not, perhaps change a plug top or a fuse, but more than this is doubtful, especially as it is not really taught on the C&G PAT course, is it on any other PAT testing course?

Most of the faults found during formal PAT should have been picked up by the intermediate user checks recommended by the IET (definitely) & HSE (IIRC).
Thus the "qualified" PAT tester should not be picking these up anyway.

Also I believe that a HUGE mountain is made out of a molehill when it comes to PAT and a lot of other engineering risks.
They are certainly not covered adequately on the NEBOSH general syllabus, nor any other course syllabus I have seen dedicated to H&S only, which is one of the reasons I have not done any quals higher at the moment than the NEBSH GC.
Once I find a good higher course syllabus covering engineering risks then I may consider it.