Zimmy Are you really saying to be an electrician that you need to be Tech IOSH and have the NEBOSH General & Construction certificate? I know quite a few sparks who are very good, but don't have the IOSH tickets. Is this just your opinion or is the opinion of the sparkies professional institution. I rarely comment on electrical issues, as I'm a mechanical engineer - but it never ceases to amaze me how a relatively straightforward PAT/maintenance and inspection regime (or whatever you wish to call it!) attracts so much heated debate. Its quite easy - get a competent person to carry out an adequate test and inspection programme. For many working environments,conditions are not too harsh for electrical equipment. I would concur though that many h&s people have a little bit of knowledge, think they know more than they do, and give awful technical/engineering advice. IOSH tickets are not enough in many cases. I had a heated discussion with someone about stress analysis and material science - clearly they didn't know what they were talking about.

I have followed this thread with some interest, and it has inevitably taken the usual ‘twists and turns’. But to go right back to the top of the thread “PAT testing – has it really got any easier?” I for one have never really found the issue of the maintenance of portable electrical kit to be a particularly difficult one to grasp. It requires an integrated approach using a VARIETY of different elements that MIGHT include, at different frequencies, depending on the circumstances (risk), formal visual inspections, user checks, pre use checks, and testing etc. Different items in different environments need different approaches, and it is unlikely that any one element in isolation would be suitable in all circumstances. I would tend to agree that the user check is one of the most important checks, but this is only the case if you have confidence that these are actually being carried out. If there is reason to suspect that this doesn’t happen as a matter of routine, then arguably formal visual inspections and/or testing becomes more important. I agree with Claire at #28, in that I really don’t see that much has changed at all. For me, it has always been a risk based decision on what needs to be done, for different types of kit in different situations. There is no doubt in my mind that there are a great many people testing items out there that either don’t need to be tested or at least don’t need to be tested as frequently as they are being. To many organisations, rightly or wrongly, it is something of a ‘comfort blanket’. I have in the past personally contacted Paul (and others) off the forum to ask for his advice, and very grateful I have been as well. However, I also take a little ‘exception’, and I confess I am a little mystified at the posts at #38/39, and agree with Claire at #41 (OMG – that’s the 2nd time that I’ve agreed with Claire!!). Like many, I am a ‘generalist’ practitioner with a lot of years experience under the belt, and am generally capable of giving sound advice over a broad range of issues. If I find myself lacking, then I go where I need to go for help. Like Claire, I am not going to keep my hands off the keyboard if I feel that I have something to add to a conversation. If I am wrong, then I am happy to ‘fess up’ and have done so in the past. I am certainly not going to treat a qualified electrician with Tech IOSH as some kind of demigod!

Zimmy and Paul take a bow :-) Thanks Jon We really do like to help, it's why we are here.